The ITO, Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Harisingh V.Choudhary, Ahmedabad

ITA 926/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6019 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDIP KOTHARI
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.926/AHD/2011 A.Y.2006-07 THE ITO WARD-6(2) AHMEDABAD. VS SHRI HARISINGH V. CHAUDHARY, NO.20, VIBHAG-3, MANICHANDRA, CO-OP. HOUSING, SOCIETY, OPP. SURDHARA CIRCLE, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD. PAN: AAPPC 4428H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI M.K. SINGH, SR.D.R., ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI SANDIP KOTHARI, A.R. / // / DATE OF HEARING : 21/07/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/07/2014 / O R D E R SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD DATED 25.01.2011. REVE NUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- MADE ON ACC OUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BEING TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,35,000/- BEING UN -EXPLAINED CASH-DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.144 DATED 19.12.2008 WERE THAT THE AO HA S RECEIVED AIR ITA NO.926/AHD/2011 ITO WARD-6(2), AHMEDABAD VS. SHRI HARISINGH V. CHOU DHARY FOR A.Y. 2006-07 - 2 - INFORMATION ACCORDING TO WHICH A SUM OF RS.16,35,00 0/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT IN NAVNIRMAN CO. BANK LTD. AHMEDABAD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEP OSIT BUT HE REMAINED ABSENT, THEREFORE, AN EX-PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED AND AN IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.16,35,000/- WAS TAXED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED A SUM OF RS.75,000/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN WH ICH WERE ALSO TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR. HOWEVER, IT WAS ALS O INFORMED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. CONSIDERING THE SU RROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THOSE EV IDENCES AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: 2.2. HAVING CONSIDERED THE AGE OF THE APPELLANT BEING 63 YEARS; HIS BEING AN AGRICULTURIST; AND THE OTHER SUBMISSIONS CONTAIN ED IN THE LETTERS DATED 22- 11-2010 AND 12-01-2011, I AM SATISFIED THAT HE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM RESPONDING TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. HENCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED IS ADMITTED. THE ISSUES RAISED IN TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DEALT WITH IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS ON MERITS AFTER C ONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF A.O. 4. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE SPECIALLY WHEN AN EX-PART E ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT AFTER EXAMINING THE FIR ST REMAND REPORT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED UPON THE EVI DENCES FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND NO FORCE IN GROU ND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. HENCE DISMISSED. 5. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.2, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FURNISHED 7/12 EXTRACTS IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS W HICH WERE CONSIDERED ITA NO.926/AHD/2011 ITO WARD-6(2), AHMEDABAD VS. SHRI HARISINGH V. CHOU DHARY FOR A.Y. 2006-07 - 3 - BY LEARNED CIT(A) AND THEREUPON HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 4.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE ME BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEN IN THE REMAND REPORT. I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE C ONTENTIONS PUT FORTH BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FI LED CONSEQUENT TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLA NT FILED PROOF WITH REGARD TO THE LAND HOLDING AND THE SALES OF CROPS CULTIVAT ED BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH AGRICULTURIST. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. IS NO T JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.75,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED IN COME AND ASSESSING THE SAME. A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME RETURNED AS SUCH. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5.1 CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED REQUISITE SUPPORTIN G EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE FINDI NGS ON FACTS OF LEARNED CIT(A). RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 6. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.3, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION O F RS, 16,35,000/- THE MAIN EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT CERTA IN WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN MADE EARLIER AND ASSESSEE WAS TO PURCHASE A LA ND; HOWEVER, DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WAS NOT MATERIALIZED ; HENCE, THE AMOUNT WAS RE-DEPOSITED. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THOSE EVIDEN CES AS WELL AS EVIDENCES OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE ADVANCED THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS VERDICT AS FOLLOWS: 5.2.1. ADDITION OF RS. 16.35 LAKHS WAS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED REGARDING THE DEPOSITS IN C ASH IN THE APPELLANT'S ACCOUNT WITH NAVNIRMAN CO.OP.BANK LTD. MADE IN JANU ARY, 2006. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING IT WAS EXPLAINED WIT H PROOF THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS OF RS.22.65 LAKHS FROM APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNTS WITH THE SAME CO.OP BANK AND WITH ICICI BA NK MADE IN OCTOBER, 2005 AND OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.75,00 0/-. A.O. HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THIS CONTENTION EXCEPT OBSERVING THAT APPELLANT MIGHT HAVE INVESTED OR UTILIZED THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN FOR UNKN OWN PURPOSE. THIS OBSERVATION IS NOTHING BUT A CONJECTURE OR SURMISE (IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THIS REGARD). GIVEN THE SHORT DURATION OF THREE MONTHS ITA NO.926/AHD/2011 ITO WARD-6(2), AHMEDABAD VS. SHRI HARISINGH V. CHOU DHARY FOR A.Y. 2006-07 - 4 - BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS, APPELLANT'S E XPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS REMAINS TENABLE. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF RS.16.35 LAKHS MADE IN JANUARY, 2006 STANDS EXPLAINED. ADDITION MADE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 6. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNTS, THE CONFIRM ATIONS GIVEN BY THE CREDITORS AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE OF WITHDRAWAL AND REDEPOSIT IN THE BANK, WE HEREBY UPHOLD THE FINDING ON FACTS GIVEN BY LEAR NED CIT(A). RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE DOES NOT SU RVIVE. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (MUK UL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/07/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. #$#% ' '& / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' '&() / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. )*' %, ' ' % , ,-$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. *./ 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 1 11 1/ // /,' #2 ,' #2 ,' #2 ,' #2 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % , , , , ,-$ ,-$ ,-$ ,-$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD