Shri Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel, Unjha V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Patan

ITA 861/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6188 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DIPEN SUKHADIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Salary income; Additional evidence
• Section: 147; 2

Judgement Text

, LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER !# I.T.A. NO. 861/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SITARAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL C/O. VINAYAK KANTILAL, 19 MARKET YARD, UNJHA 384 170 # VS. ITO, WARD 2 1 ST FLOOR, SANTOKBA HALL, RAJ MAHAL ROAD, PATAN 384 265 $ # % & # PAN/GIR NO. : AQDPP 4010 E ( !$' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' # RESPONDENT ) !$') # APPELLANT BY : SHRI DIPEN SUKHADIA, A.R. ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR. D.R. + ,*-. / DATE OF HEARING 30/01/2018 /012*-. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02/02/2018 3# O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-GANDHINAGAR, A HMEDABAD, VIDE APPEAL NO. CIT(A)/GNR/413/2013-14 DTD. 22/01/2015 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. 2. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER OF RS.18,26,730/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ITA NO.861/AHD/ 2015 SITARAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS IT INVOLVED GIFT RECEIVED FROM RELATIVES WHO HAD INCOM E FROM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO ESTABLISH THEIR CREDIT WORT HINESS AS WELL AS LOANS RECEIVED FROM RELATIVES AND FRIENDS WHO WE RE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AMOUNT S LENT BY EACH ONE WAS WELL WITHIN THEIR MEANS OF A EARNINGS. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING SALARY INCOME AND AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS BELOW TAXA BLE INCOME AND NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR. THROUGH ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN, INFORMATION RECEIVED THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE CASH D EPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.18,48,730/- IN BANK ACCOUNTS AND CASE WAS RE-OPE NED BASED ON THE INFORMATION, NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT, WAS ISSUED ON 28/03/2013 AND ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED U/S.144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.18,49,305/- VID E ORDER DATED 27/12/2013. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ASKED THE APPELLANT TO SUBMIT THE SOURCE OF SAID CA SH DEPOSIT TRANSACTIONS WITH THE BANK BY NOTICE DATED 29/11/2013, BUT ASSES SEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COULD NOT SUBMIT A NY DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFF ICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.18,49,305/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 4. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY A PPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING TH E APPELLANT ITA NO.861/AHD/ 2015 SITARAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - PROCEEDINGS. LD. CIT(A) ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUG HT REMAND REPORT FROM LD. AO AND DECIDED THE MATTER. APPEAL WAS DISM ISS BY LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. APPELLANT RECEIVED GIFT OF RS.17,00,000/- FROM RELA TIVES AND RS.1,50,400/- BORROWINGS FROM RELATIVE AND FRIENDS. WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE AND ADDITION MADE O F RS.17,00,000/- BEING CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, AS G IFT WERE RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS. (1) RS.5,00,000/- FROM FATHER IN LAW (2) RS.5,00,000/- FROM ASHMITABEN S. PATEL WHO IN TURN FROM HER FATHER SHRI KARSAN NARAN KALARIYA (3) RS.2,50,000/- FROM HIS BROTHER SHRI AMRATLAL R AMCHANDDAS PATEL. (4) RS.4,50,000/- FROM ASHMITABEN SITARAMBHAI PATEL WHO IN TURN FROM HER UNCLE SHRI RAMNIKLAL N. KALARIA. IN THE REMAND REPORT, AO MENTIONED THAT GIFT FROM R ELATIVES OF RS.17,00,000/- AND BORROWING FROM FRIENDS AND RELAT IVES OF RS.1,50,400/- CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS DEPOSITORS ARE MOSTLY LABOURE RS WORKING IN APMC MARKET AND APPELLANT HAS PROVED THE PAYING CAPACITY OF SUCH BORROWINGS. APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVE SUCH BORROWINGS. IT IS AL SO A FACT, THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINING ANY ACCOUNTS AND THEIR ST ATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT T HAT THE BORROWINGS HAD BEEN REPAID TO THEM IS BASELESS AND MADE UP STORY A ND AN AFTERTHOUGHT. FURTHER, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE D ONORS HAD CONFIRMED ON OATH IN THEIR STATEMENTS THAT THEY HAD GIVEN THE GI FT OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ALSO DOUBTFUL IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCES. TO PROVE SOURCE OF SUCH GIFT NO EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PR ODUCED BEFORE THE ITA NO.861/AHD/ 2015 SITARAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - AO EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR REMA ND PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS A CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SOURCE OF SUC H GIFTS WERE FROM AGRICULTURE INCOME AND PASS SAVINGS OF THE DONORS B UT APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY BANK STATEMENT TO PROVE THAT GIFT WAS G IVEN FROM PAST SAVINGS. APPELLANT HAS BEEN FAILED TO PRODUCE EITHE R BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR BEFORE US THAT SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE D RECEIPTS AND BILLS ETC. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION AND NOT EVEN A SINGLE TRANSACTION HAVE BEEN ENTERED THROUGH BANK. A STATEMENT OF SHRI KRASHAN NARAN KALADIYA S/O SHRI NARAN KALADIYA WAS RECORDED BY THE AO U/S.131 OF THE I.T. ACT AT PAGE NO.31 AND 32, HE STATED THAT HE OWNED 14 BIGHA AGRICULTUR E LAND AND HIS TOTAL CROPS WAS 500 MANN (1 MANN = 20KG) AND 500 MANN PEA NUTS PRODUCE FROM AGRICULTURE LAND. WE ARE JUST FAIL TO UNDERSTA ND HOW THIS MUCH OF LAND CAN PRODUCE SUCH A HUGE CROP. IT IS A MATTER O F RESEARCH FOR THE AGRICULTURE SCIENTIST AS WELL. THIS STATEMENT CANNO T BE RELIED UPON AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION HE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY C ERTIFICATE FROM THE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND WHEN HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED WHETHER HE HAS MAINTAINING ANY RECORD THEN IN REPLY HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND MOREOVER HE HAS NOT MA INTAINING ANY ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE AND BANK ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY GIFT DEED WHEN HE GIFTED THE A MOUNT TO THE RELATIVES. SO IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, APPELLANT HAS BEEN FA ILED TO PROVE HIS CASE AS HE HAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BANK ACCOUNT NOR HIS RELATIVES AND FRIENDS ARE MAINTAINING ANY BANK ACCOUNT EITHER THEY ARE LA BOURERS OR FARMERS. THEREFORE, THERE CREDIT WORTHINESS IS IN DOUBT. ITA NO.861/AHD/ 2015 SITARAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 02/02/2018 SD/- SD/- ( ) 4 5 ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 02/02/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'# $#! # COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 67- + 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. + 8- 4!5 / THE CIT(A)-1, AHMEDABAD. 5. 9:;-67 !.!672 ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<=, # GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 30/01/2018 (DICTATION-PAD 2 PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 30/01/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S . 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER