JALPA BHRUGESH LAKHIARA, AHMEDABAD V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

ITA 844/AHD/2019

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Jalpa Bhrugesh Lakhiara against the order of the CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained cash deposits and unsecured loans for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer had noted substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and classified these as unexplained, along with certain entries as unsecured loans. The assessee contested these findings, providing additional evidence during the Tribunal proceedings, which was not previously considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal found the additional evidence crucial and remanded the case for further examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129472 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; TDS
• Section: 148; 194C; 69A

Judgement Text

ITA No.844/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.844/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jalpa Bhrugesh Lakhiara, 3, Ramanand Colony, Opp. Railway Colony, Near Balwatika, Maninagar, Ahmedabad – 380 008. [PAN – ACXPL 4105 C] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pritesh L. Shah, CA Revenue by Shri Suraj Bhan Garwal, Sr. DR Da te o f He a r in g 12.06.2023 Da te o f P ro n o u n ce m e n t 28.06.2023 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in confirming the addition of cash deposited to bank of Rs.16,77,500/-, such addition is requested to be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in confirming the addition of unsecured loan of Rs.19,60,000/-, such addition is requested to be deleted.” 3. A per the information available with the Revenue Office, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.16,77,500/- into Bank Account of ICICI Bank, Ahmedabad during the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. The Assessing Officer further noticed that the assessee had made investments/Mutual Funds of Rs.2,73,850/- and as per 26AS in receipt of Rs.12,25,554/- wherein TDS has been deducted under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has not filed her return of income for A.Y. 2010-11. Accordingly, case of the assessee was reopened under Section 148 of the Act and notice was issued on 28.03.2017. In ITA No.844/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 2 of 4 response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 01.07.2017 showing total income of Rs.3,15,750/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish details related to source of cash deposited and various credit entries. Vide letter dated 11.10.2017 the ld. AR of the assessee furnished summary of the bank account statement with regard to Bank Account No.0300290000042 with particulars of debit and credit entries appearing in the Bank book. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was in receipt of Rs.19,60,000/- as unsecured loan and the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.16,77,500/- on various dates. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has not filed her return of income in Form No.ITR-4 and the income is not shown under Section 44AD. Thus, the Assessing Officer after taking cognisance of the details made addition of Rs.16,77,500/- as her unexplained cash deposit under Section 69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that since the assessee was not aware about the tax intricacies, the Accountant-cum-Clerk who has been employed by the assessee to prepare the bank book in Excel for the year under consideration in respect of current account with HDFC bank and gave the same to the respective CA for submitting to the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR submitted that the Accountant prepared such Excel sheet in hurried manner and without any adequate concentration and on the basis of some assumptions made wrong entries in such excel sheet about the banking transactions thereby stating it as unsecured loan but the same are in respect of sales realisation from the parties. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that additional evidence should be admitted and the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the assessment on merit. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee had ample opportunity before Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) but before both the authorities the assessee has not furnished details. Instead, at this juncture, before the Tribunal the assessee is for the first time coming with the plea that the entries are wrong entries and it impacts the sales realisation. Ld. DR submitted that this plea is totally new ITA No.844/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 3 of 4 plea and the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has rightly held the said cash deposit to Bank as unsecured loan. The Ld. DR submitted that the additional evidence should not be accepted at this juncture. 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the application for additional evidence made by the assessee contains the affidavit of the assessee as well as the Excel sheets showing the transactions of HDFC Bank account with the entries alongwith narration. The assessee has also filed confirmations from Jivanlal & Sons alongwith the details in the relevant period in their books of accounts. The assessee has filed confirmations in respect of Shreeji International. The assessee filed confirmations from Bhrugesh Atulvadan Lakhiara, Augusta International & Shailnick Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., stating that these are the sales realisation and not that of unsecured loan. These documents were not before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) and the same are crucial in assessee’s case. 8. As relates to ground no.1, the Ld. AR submitted that the cash source as well as cash deposits to the Bank has been given in the additional evidences and these are the sales realisation in cash and cash withdrawal from HDFC bank and the same should be considered and verified. As regards to ground no.2 related to addition of unsecured loan, the Ld. AR submitted that the additional evidence contains actual nature of receipt as well as sales receipts from Genesis Logistics and sales receipts from Jeevanlal & Sons as well as documents related to loan repayment by Shreeji International and funds received back from assessee’s husband Bhrugesh Atulvadan Lakhiara. The Ld. AR further submitted that as related to sales receipts from Genesis Logistics amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-, the assessee did not have evidence and the same should not be taken into account. 9. The Ld. DR on merit relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 10. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As per above said observations related to additional evidence, it is appropriate in assessee’s case that the additional evidence is a crucial evidence to decide the issues related to cash deposits to Bank and the addition which was made ITA No.844/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 4 of 4 by unsecured loans that of Rs.19,60,000/-. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the additional evidence and the same should be verified and the Assessing Officer after verification of the evidences to take cognisance of the same and decide the matter as per law. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 28 th June, 2023. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 28 th day of June, 2023 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad