Shri Ramnikgiri Maharajgiri Gauswami, Rajkot V. The DCIT, Central Circle, Rajkot

ITA 93/RJT/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9819 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIASHISHKUMARPANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIMEHULRANPURA; REDUCINGTHEHOUSEHOLD
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,अहमदाबादनायपीप INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, (ConductedthroughE-Court,Rajkot) BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And MsMADHUMITAROY,JUDICIALMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITANos.91&92/Rjt/2019 निर्धररवरध / Asstt.Years:2011-12&2012-13 & आयकरअपीलसं./ITANos.93&94/Rjt/2019 निर्धररवरध/Asstt.Years:2014-15&2015-16 ShriRamnikgiriMaharajgiri Gauswami, 403,PrinceTower, 16,PanchnathPlot, Rajkot-360001. PAN:ACBPG1256B Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-1, Rajkot. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriMehulRanpura,A.R Revenueby:ShriAshishKumarPandey,Sr.D.R सुिव्ईकीत्रीख/DateofHearing:18/10/2023 घोरर्कीत्रीख/DateofPronouncement:29/11/2023 आदेश/ORDER PERBENCH: Thecaptionedappealshavebeenfiledattheinstanceoftheassessee againsttheordersoftheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad,(inshort“Ld.CIT(A)”)arisinginthematterofassessmentorder passedunders.143(3)r.w.s147oftheIncomeTaxAct1961(here-in-after referredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessmentYears2011-12,2012-13, 2014-15&2015-16. ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 2 2.First,wetakeupITANo.91/Ahd/2019forAY2011-12 3.Theassesseehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Thegroundsofaappealmentionedhereunderarewithoutprejudicetooneanother. 2.ThelearnedCommissionerofIncome-tax(Appeals)-11,Ahmedabad(CIT)Aerredonfacts arealsoinlawinretainingadditionofRs.41,55,750/-byestimation7.50%profitonsaleof imlo.Theadditionretainedistotallyunjustifiedanduncalledforanddeservestobedeleted andmaykindlybedeleted. 3.ThelearnedCommissionerofIncome-tax(Appeals)-11,Ahmedabad(CIT)Aerredonfacts asalsoinlawinretainingadditionofRs.1,50,000/-byestimatinghouseholdexpenditure.The additionretainedintotallyunjustifiedanduncalledforanddeservestobedeletedandmay kindlybedeleted. 4.ThefirstissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin sustainingtheadditionof₹41,55,750/-byestimatingtheprofit@7.5%onsale ofImloofoldconstructedbuildingmaterials. 5.Thefactsinbriefarethattheassesseeisanindividualandclaimedtobe engagedintheactivityofbrokingbusiness.Theassesseeintheyearunder considerationhasnotfiledanyreturnofincomeundersection139oftheAct.A searchproceedingundersection132oftheActdated19 th September2014was carriedoutatthepremisesof“Angadiya”namelyShriChetanHaribhaiBhalodiya proprietorof“YesEnterprise”.Duringthesearch,itwasfoundthattheassessee hastakenchequeamountingto₹6.5croreinlieuofcashfrom“YeshEnterprise” outwhichanamountof₹5.541croretakenintheyearunderconsiderationand theremainingamountof₹95.90Lakhwastakenintheimmediatenextyear. SuchachequewasutilizedformakingpaymenttoM/sAmidharaDevelopersPvt LtdagainstthepurchasesofImloofoldconstructedbuildings. 5.1Subsequently,anoticeformakingtheincomeescapingassessmentunder section148oftheActwasissuedandtheassesseewasalsosummonedunder section131(1)oftheActandhisstatementwasrecorded.Theassesseeadmitted ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 3 thathehaspurchasedoldbuildingsfromM/sAmidharaDevelopersPvtLtdfor₹ 6.5croreonaduebasis.Thereafterhesoldtheimloofdemolishedpartof buildingtolocalceramicmanufacturerandscrapperincash.Outofsuchcash, generatedfromthesaleofimlo,chequeanddemanddraftwerepurchasedfrom AngadiyatomakepaymenttoM/sAmidharaDevelopersPvtLtd.Intheprocess, heearnedprofitof₹25Lakhonly.Theassesseealsostatedthatnoformal accountwasmaintainedbyhimfortheimpugnedtransactionexceptroughnoting. 5.2However,theAO,intheabsenceofnecessarysupportingdocumentsand booksofaccounts,proposedtoestimateincome@10%ontheamountof cheque/demanddraftpurchasedfromAngadiyaYeshEnterprises.TheAOafter rejectingexplanationoftheassesseewhichwasidenticaltothestatementgiven u/s131(1)oftheAct,finallymadeadditionof₹55.41Lakhbeing10%ofthe chequeordemanddraftpurchasedbytheassesseeinlieuofcashintheyear underconsideration. 6.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A)and madeidenticalsubmissionthatheearnedprofitintherangeof4to5%only. However,thelearnedCIT(A)consideringthefactthatassesseehasnot maintainedthebooksofaccountforthebusinesscarriedbyhimandconsidering thedeemingprovisionundersection44ADetc,estimatedtheprofitofthe assessee@7.5%only.TherelevantfindingofthelearnedCIT(A)readsasunder: Inresponsetotheshowcausenoticetheappellanthadreiteratedhisstandthatheearned notmorethan4-5%onsaleofimlo.Onperusaloftheassessmentorder,Icouldnotfind anywhisperonthepartofAOtocometoaconclusiontoestimatetheincomeat10%. TheAOalsodidnotbringonrecordanycomparablecasetoarriveattheestimationof 10%.Nodoubtintheabsenceofreturnofincomeandthebooksofaccount,incomehas tobeestimatedonthebasisofturnover.Inordertoavoidhardshiptothetaxpayer publicatlarge,thelegislaturehadprovidedprovisionsofsection44ADtotaxtheincome ateightpercentageoftotalturnoverofeligiblebusiness.Nodoubttheappellant'sturnover doesnotcomewithintheambitofprovisionofsection44ADoftheAct,however,itgives somesortofreasonablenessindeterminingtheincomeofanassessee.Anybusinessother thanplying,hiringorleasinggoodscarriagefallswithintheambitofexplanationofeligible businesssubjecttolimitofturnoverprescribedtherein.Inthepresentcasethewastage/ debrisobtainedfromdemolitionofbuildingisabusinessofscrapdealerwhichisclaimed tobeofinferiorinnatureassuchearningcapacityisonlowerside.Intheabsenceoaany ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 4 comparablecase,ontheanalogyofsection44ADoftheAct,theestimationofprofit @7.5%wouldmeettheendofjustice.TheAOisthereforedirectedtotaxincomeof Rs.41,55,750/0whichis7.5%ofRs.5,54,10,000/-.Thus,outoftotaladditionof Rs.55,41,000/-theappellantgetsreliefofRs.13,85,250/-andadditionofRs.41,55,750/-is confirmed.Thusgroundofappealispartlyallowed. 7.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theassesseeisin appealbeforeus. 8.ThelearnedARbeforeusfiledapaperbookrunningfrompages1to17 andcontendedthattheprofithasbeenestimatedbytherevenuewithoutbringing anycomparablecasesandthereforetheprofitacceptedbytheassesseeshould onlybesubjecttotax. 9.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe AOauthoritiesbelow. 10.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialavailableonrecord.Fromtheprecedingdiscussion,wenotethatthe controversyinthegivenfactsandcircumstancesrelatestotheestimationofprofit. TheAOhasestimatedtheprofitonthesaleofIMLOat10%of₹6.50croresin2 differentassessmentyearswhereasthelearnedCIT-Arestrictedthesametothe extentof7.50%.Theassesseehasfiledtheappealbeforeusandthereforethe onusliesupontheassesseeinsupportofhiscontentionthattheincomeearned byhimfromthesaleofIMLOwaslessthan7.50%ofthevalueof cheque/demanddraftpurchasedfromthe3 rd partybeingAangdiay.Likewise,the assesseehasalsonotgivenanybasisforestimatingtheincomeattherateof4to 5%whichwasagreedbyhimtohaveearnedfromthesaleofIMLO.Assuchwe notethat,theassesseehasnotdischargedtheonusimposeduponhimfor estimatingtheincomebasedoncomparablecases.Admittedly,therevenuehas alsoestimatedtheincomebutwithoutreferringtothecomparablecases.However, therevenuehadtoestimatetheincomeintheabsenceofdocumentaryevidence whichwassupposedtobeprovidedbytheassessee.Indeed,forestimatingthe ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 5 income,theelementofguessworkisalwaysinvolvedbutthesameshouldnotbe unrealistic.However,theprimaryonusliesupontheassesseewhichhefailedto fulfilandthereforeweareoftheviewthattheincomeestimatedbythelearned CIT-Ainthegivenfactsandcircumstancesisreasonableandcommensurateifthe otherfactsoftheassesseeareseeninaggregation.Assuch,theassesseeinthe lateryearshaspurchasedexpensivecarsandhasalsoshownborrowedmoney buttheassesseefailedtojustifythesourceofmoneyforthepurchaseofcarsas wellasjustifyingthesourceofdepositsinthebank.Thus,weareoftheviewthat theprofitestimatedbythelearnedCIT-Aisreasonableandcommensuratewith theactivitiescarriedonbytheassessee.Hencethegroundofappealofthe assesseeisherebydismissed. 11.ThenextissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin estimatingthehouseholdexpensesat₹1.5lakhtherebyconfirmingtheaddition tothatextent. 12.TheAOduringtheassessmentproceedingproposedtoestimatethe householdexpenseoftheassesseeat₹3Lakhfromundisclosedsources.The assesseeobjectedtotheproposaloftheAObystatingthathishousehold expensesconsistforonly2personswhichmetoutoftheaccumulatedearning frombrokerageincomefromearlieryearaswellprofitearnedonsaleofimlo. 12.1TheAOdidnotaccepttheexplanationoftheassesseeandestimatedthe householdexpensesfromundisclosedsourcesat₹3Lakhandaddedthesameto thetotalincomeoftheassessee. 13.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A).The learnedCIT(A)providedpartrelieftotheassesseebyreducingthehousehold expensesfromundisclosedsourcesat₹1.5Lakh. ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 6 14.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theassesseeisin appealbeforeus. 15.ThelearnedARbeforeuscontendedthattheassesseehasaccepted sufficientincomeintheproceedingsundersection147oftheActandthereforeno separateadditioniswarrantedonaccountoflowhouseholdexpensesinthegiven factsandcircumstances. 16.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelow. 17.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedly,theAOhasestimatedthehousehold expenseoftheassesseeat₹3Lakhandheldthatsamewereincurredfrom undisclosedsourcesofincomewhichwassubsequentlyreducedbythelearned CIT(A)at₹1.5Lakh.Attheoutset,wenotethattheAOandthelearnedCIT(A) foundthattheassesseehasearnedincomefromthesaleofdemolishedmaterial ofbuilding(imlo).Assuchtheassesseeclaimedthatthatheearnednetprofitat₹ 25lakhaftermakingpaymentof6.5croreswhereasAOandCIT(A)estimatedthe profit@10%and7.5%of₹6.5crorerespectively.Ineithercase,theassessee hadsufficientincomefromthesaleofimlotomeethishouseholdexpenses. Therefore,makingseparateadditiononaccountofhouseholdexpenseinthe givenfactandcircumstanceswillleadtodoubletaxationwhichisnotdesirable undertheprovisionoftheAct.Thus,weherebyset-asidethefindingofthe learnedCIT(A)anddirecttheAOtodeletetheadditionmadebyhim.Hencethe groundofappealoftheassesseeisherebyallowed. 18.Intheresult,theappealoftheassesseeisherebypartlyallowed. ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 7 ComingtoITANo.92/AHD/2019forA.Y.2012-13 19.Theassesseehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Thegroundsofappealmentionedhereunderarewithoutprejudicetooneanother. 2.ThelearnedCommissionerofIncome-tax(Appeals)-11,Ahmedabad(CIT(A),erred onfactsasalsoinlawinretainingadditionofRs.7,19,250/-byestimating7.50%profiton saleofimlo.Theadditionretainedistotallyunjustifiedanduncalledforanddeservestobe deletedandmaykindlybedeleted. 3.ThelearnedCommissionerofIncome-tax(Appeals)-11,Ahmedabad(CITA)erred onfactsasalsoinlawinretainingadditionofRs.1,50,000/-byestimatinghousehold expenditure.Theadditionretainedistotallyunjustifiedanduncalledforanddeservestobe deletedandmaykindlybedeleted. 20.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissuesraisedbytheassesseeinitsgrounds ofappealforAY2012-13areidenticaltothegroundofappealraisedbythe assesseeforA.Y.2011-12inITANo.91/Ahd/2019.Therefore,thefindingsgiven inITANo.91/Ahd/2019shallalsobeapplicablefortheyearunderconsideration i.e.AY2012-13.ThegroundsofappealoftheassesseeforA.Y.2011-12hasbeen decidedbyusvideparagraphNos.10and17ofthisorderwhereintheissueof estimationofprofitonsaleofimlohasbeendecidedagainsttheassesseewhereas issueofadditiononaccountofhouseholdexpenseshasbeendecidedinfavourof theassessee.ThelearnedARandtheDRalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethe findingsfortheassessmentyear2011-12shallalsobeappliedfortheyearunder considerationi.e.AY2012-13.Hence,thegroundofappealrelatingtothe estimationofprofitisdismissedwhereasthegroundofappealrelatingthe householdexpensesisallowed. 21.Intheresult,theappealoftheassesseeisherebypartlyallowed. ComingtoITANo.93/AHD/2019forA.Y.2014-15 22.Theassesseeraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Thegroundsofappealmentionedhereunderarewithoutprejudicetooneanother. 2.ThelearnedCommissionerofIncome-tax(Appeals)-11,Ahmedabad[CIT(A)]erred onfactsasalsoinlawinretainingadditionofRs.15,17,000/-onaccountofunexplained ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 8 creditsinbankaccount.Theadditionretainedistotallyunjustifiedanduncalledforand deservestobedeletedandmaykindlybedeleted. 3.ThelearnedCommissionerofIncome-tax(Appeals)-11,Ahmedabad[CIT(A)]erred onfactsasalsoinlawinretainingadditionofRs.21,25,000/-onaccountofunexplained expenditureincurredfromundisclosedsources.Theadditionretainedistotallyunjustified anduncalledforanddeservestobedeletedandmaykindlybedeleted. 4.ThelearnedCommissionerofIncome-tax(Appeals)-11,Ahmedabad[CIT(A)]erred onfactsasalsoinlawinretainingadditionofRs.1,50,000/-byestimatinghousehold expenditure.Theadditionretainedistotallyunjustifiedanduncalledforanddeservestobe deletedandmaykindlybedeleted. 23.ThefirstissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin confirmingtheadditionof₹15,17,000/-bytreatingthecreditinbankaccountas unexplained. 24.Duringtheyear,thesavingbankaccountoftheassesseewithunionbank (UB)gotcreditedfor₹15.17Lakh.Theassesseeexplainedthedepositwasmade outofbrokerageincomeaswellasloanfromfriend’sotherperson/concern. 24.1However,theexplanationwasnotacceptedbytheAOonthereasoning thattheassesseehasnotfiledanyreturnofincomeandalsonotprovided documentaryevidencetosupporthisclaim.Thus,theAOtreatedcreditof₹15.17 lakhasunexplainedandaddedtothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 25.OnappealthelearnedCIT(A)alsoconfirmedthesamebyobservingas under: 6.2Theappellantinthecourseofpresentproceedingsappellanthadclaimedthathe carriedoutthebusinessinimlo[scrapofbuilding]duringthefinancialyear2010-11and 2011-12andtheturnoverwasRs.6.50crores.OutoftheprofitofRs.25lacsearnedon hisbusiness,thisamounthadbeendepositedinbankaccount.However,itisseenfrom thebankstatementthatthecreditsbytransferentriesotherthancashandthesame remainedunexplained.Theadditionthereforedirectedtobesustained.Thisgroundof appealisdismissed. 26.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theassesseeisin appealbeforeus. ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 9 27.ThelearnedARbeforeuscontendedthatthedepositsinthebank representbrokerageincomeandloansfromfriendsandthereforenoadditionin thegivenfactsandcircumstancesiswarranted. 28.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelow. 29.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedly,thereweredepositsinthebankaccount oftheassesseeandthereforetheonusliesupontheassesseetojustifythesource ofthesame.Buttheassesseehasnotjustifiedthesamebasedonthe documentaryevidence.Accordinglyintheabsenceofanyexplanationbythe assesseeaboutthesourceofmoneyinthebankaccount,wehavenoother alternativeexcepttoconfirmtheorderoftheauthoritiesbelow.Hencetheground ofappealoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. 30ThesecondissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erred inconfirmingtheadditionof₹21,25,000/-representingthepurchaseofacar fromundisclosedsources. 31.TheAOduringtheassessmentproceedingsfoundthattheassesseehas purchasedaFordCarfor₹21.25lakhsandpaymentofthesamewasmadeby purchasingchequefromAngadiyanamely“YashEnterprises”inlieuofcash.The sourcesofmoneytothetuneof₹21.25lakhsusedagainstthepurchaseofcar wasnotexplainedandthereforetheAOmadetheadditiontothetotalincomeof theassessee. 32.Onappeal,thelearnedCIT-Aalsoconfirmedthesamebyobservingas under: 7.2TheappellantpurchasedchequesofRs.21,25,000/-bypayingsimilarcashfor purchaseoffordcar.Inthecourseofassessmentproceedingsaswellpresentproceedings ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 10 hasclaimedthatthechequeswerepurchasedfromprofitearnedfromimlobusinessas wellfromcommissionincomeetc.However,itisobservedfromthebankstatementofthe appellantthatthoughhemadevarioustransactionsfromhisbankaccountwithUnion BankaswellaswithBankofBarodahowever,hedidnotroutedthroughthefundsfrom thisaccounttopurchasecarbuthadobtainedchequebydepositingequivalentcash. UnderthecircumstancesthepurchaseofchequesofRs.21,25,000/-isheldtobe unexplainedandassuchtheadditiononthiscountissustained.Thisgroundofappealis dismissed. 33.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theassesseeisin appealbeforeus. 34.ThelearnedARbeforeuscontendedthatthecarwaspurchasedoutofthe moneyearnedbyhimintheearlieryearswhichhasalsobeensufferedtotax. Therefore,themoneyearnedintheearlieryearhasbeenappliedforthepurchase ofacarandthereforenoseparateadditiontothegivenfactsandcircumstancesis warranted. 35.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelow. 36.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedly,therewasincomeearnedbythe assesseeintheearlieryearswhichhasalsosufferedtotax.Thedetailsofthe samestandasunder: A.Y.2011-12₹41,55,750/- A.Y.2012-13₹7,19,250/- Total₹48,75,000/- 36.1Outoftheaboveincomeoftheassessee,thehouseholdexpensesforthe earlieryearshavebeenestimatedat₹1,50,000/-peryear.Accordingly,the aggregateofhouseholdexpensesoftheassesseeforA.Y.2011-12to2014-15 standsat₹6Lakhsonly.Thus,itcanbeassumedthatoutoftheincomeof₹ 48.75lakhspertainingtoearlieryears(A.Y.2011-12and2012-13)asumof₹6 Lakhshasonlybeenutilizedtowardsthehouseholdexpenses.Therevenuehas ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 11 notbroughtanyiotaofevidencesuggestingthattheearlieryearsincomesuffered totaxhasbeenusedforsomeotherpurposeseitherbywayofmakingsome investmentorexpenditure.Thus,intheabsenceofsuchinformation,itcanbe presumedthattheamountofincomewhichhassufferedtaxintheearlieryear hasbeenutilizedforthepurchaseofthecar.Theearlierincomeafteradjusting householdexpensesstandsat₹42.75lakhsandthecostofthecarpurchasedin theyearcomesat₹21.25lakhsonly.Stillthebalanceincomeavailablewiththe assesseestandsat₹21.50Lakhs(₹42.75lakhs-₹21.25lakhs).Inviewofthe above,weholdthattherewassufficienttaxpaidmoneyavailablewiththe assesseewhichhasbeenusedforacquiringthecaronhand.Therefore,no separateadditiononaccountofpurchaseofcarisrequiredtobemade.Hence, thegroundofappealoftheassesseeisherebyallowed. 37.ThelastissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin estimatingthehouseholdexpensesat₹1.5lakhtherebyconfirmingtheaddition tothatextent. 38.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissuesraisedbytheassesseeinhisgrounds ofappealforAY2014-15areidenticaltothegroundofappealraisedbythe assesseeforA.Y.2011-12inITANo.91/Ahd/2019.Therefore,thefindingsgiven inITANo.91/Ahd/2019shallalsobeapplicablefortheyearunderconsideration i.e.A.Y.2014-15.ThegroundofappealoftheassesseeforA.Y.2011-12hasbeen decidedbyusvideparagraphNo.17ofthisorderinfavouroftheassessee.The learnedARandtheDRalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethefindingsforthe assessmentyear2011-12shallalsobeappliedfortheyearunderconsiderationi.e. AY2014-15.Hence,thegroundofappealfiledbytheassesseeisherebyallowed. 39.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisherebypartlyallowed. ComingtoITANo.94/AHD/2019forA.Y.2015-16 ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 12 40.Theassesseehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Thegroundsofappealmentionedhereunderarewithoutprejudicetooneanother. 2.ThelearnedCommissionerofIncome-tax(Appeals)-11,Ahmedabad[CIT(A)]erredon factsasalsoinlawinretainingadditionofRs.1,938/-onaccountofunexplainedcreditsin bankaccount.Theadditionretainedistotallyunjustifiedanduncalledforanddeservestobe deletedandmaykindlybedeleted. 3.ThelearnedCommissionerofIncome-tax(Appeals)-11,Ahmedabad[CIT(A)]erredon factsasalsoinlawinretainingadditionofRs.41,03,460/-onaccountofunexplained expenditureincurredfromundisclosedsources.Theadditionretainedistotallyunjustifiedand uncalledforanddeservestobedeletedandmaykindlybedeleted. 4.ThelearnedCommissionerofIncome-tax(Appeals)-11,Ahmedabad[CIT(A)]erredon factsasalsoinlawinretainingadditionofRs.1,50,000/-byestimatinghousehold expenditure.Theadditionretainedistotallyunjustifiedanduncalledforanddeservestobe deletedandmaykindlybedeleted. 41.ThefirstissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin confirmingtheadditionof₹1938/-onaccountofcreditinbank. 42.Attheoutset,wenotethatcaptionedgroundofappealhasnotbeen pressedbytheassesseeduetosmallnessofamountinvolvedinthedispute. Hence,thesameisdismissedasnotpressed. 43.ThenextissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin confirmingtheadditionof₹41,03,460/-representingthepurchaseofacarfrom undisclosedsources. 44.TheAOduringtheassessmentproceedingsfoundthattheassesseehas purchasedAudiCarfor₹41,03,460/-andpaymentofthesamewasmadeby purchasingchequefromAngadiyanamely“YashEnterprises”inlieuofcash.The sourcesofmoneytothetuneof₹41,03,460/-usedagainstthepurchaseofcar wasnotexplainedandthereforetheAOmadetheadditiontothetotalincomeof theassessee. ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 13 45.Onappeal,thelearnedCIT-Aalsoconfirmedthesamebyobservingas under: 7.2TheappellantpurchasedchequesofRs.41,03,460/-bypayingsimilarcashfor purchaseoffordcar.Inthecourseofassessmentproceedingsaswellpresentproceedings hasclaimedthatthechequeswerepurchasedfromprofitearnedfromimlobusinessas wellfromcommissionincomeetc.However,itisobservedfromthebankstatementofthe appellantthatthoughhemadevarioustransactionfromhisbankaccountwithUnionBank aswellaswithBankofBarodahowever,hedidnotroutedthefundsfromthisaccountto purchasecarbuthadobtainedchequebydepositingequivalentcash.Underthe circumstancesthepurchaseofchequesofRs.41,03,460/-isheldtobeunexplainedandas suchtheadditiononthisaccountissustained.Thisgroundofappealisdismissed. 46.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theassesseeisin appealbeforeus. 47.ThelearnedARbeforeuscontendedthatthecarwaspurchasedoutofthe moneyearnedbyhimintheearlieryearswhichhasalsobeensufferedtotax. Therefore,themoneyearnedintheearlieryearhasbeenappliedforthepurchase ofacarandthereforenoseparateadditiontothegivenfactsandcircumstancesis warranted. 48.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelow. 49.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Attheoutsetwenotethattherewastaxpaid incomeavailablewiththeassesseefromA.Y.2011-12and2012-13amountingto ₹21.50Lakhsandfurthertheincomeonaccountofdepositinbankaccountfor₹ 15.17lakhssufferedtaxinthehandsoftheassesseeinimmediateprevious assessmentyear.Accordingly,theaggregatetaxpaidincomeavailableinthe handsoftheassesseefromearlieryearsisat₹36.67Lakhs.Thereisnofindingof therevenuethatsuchincomesufferedtotaxinearlierhasbeenutilized somewhereelse.Atthemost,itcanbeassumedthatsuchincomehasbeenused forthepurposeofhouseholdexpensesintheyearunderconsiderationwhich ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 14 cannotexceeds₹1.5LakhsestimatedbythelearnedCIT(A).Accordingly,thenet amountavailablewiththeassesseestandsat₹35.15Lakhs(₹36.67Lakhs-₹1.5 Lakhs). 49.1Therevenuehasnotbroughtanyiotaofevidencesuggestingthatthe earliermoney/incomewhichsufferedtotaxhasbeenusedforsomeother purposeseitherbywayofmakingsomeinvestmentorexpenditure.Thus,inthe absenceofsuchinformation,itcanbepresumedthattheamountofincomewhich sufferedtaxintheearlieryearhasbeenutilizedforthepurposeofpurchasingthe car.Theearlierincomestandsat₹35.15lakhswhichshouldbeadjustedagainst thecostofcarpurchasedintheyearunderconsiderationwhichstandat₹ 41,03,460/-.Accordingly,thenetamountofcarcostfromunexplainedsources remainsat₹5,88,460/-only. 49.2Inviewoftheabove,weholdthatonlyanamountof₹5,88,460/-canbe addedtototalincomeoftheassesseeonaccountofpurchaseofcarfrom undisclosed/unexplainedsourceswhereasremainingamountofRs.₹35.15lakhs shallbepresumedtobesourcedfromtheearlierincomealreadysufferedtotax. Hence,thegroundofappealfiledbytheassesseeisherebypartlyallowed. 50.ThelastissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin estimatingthehouseholdexpenseat₹1.5lakhtherebyconfirmingtheadditionto thatextent. 51.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissuesraisedbytheassesseeinitsgrounds ofappealforAY2015-16areidenticaltothegroundofappealraisedbythe assesseeforA.Y.2011-12inITANo.91/Ahd/2019.Therefore,thefindingsgiven inITANo.91/Ahd/2019shallalsobeapplicablefortheyearunderconsideration i.e.A.Y.2015-16.ThegroundofappealoftheassesseeforA.Y.2011-12hasbeen decidedbyusvideparagraphNo.17ofthisorderinfavouroftheassessee.The learnedARandtheDRalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethefindingsforthe ITAnos.91to94/Rjt/2019 Asstt.Years2011-12,2012-13,2014-16&2015-16 15 assessmentyear2011-12shallalsobeappliedfortheyearunderconsiderationi.e. AY2015-16.Hence,thegroundofappealfiledbytheassesseeisherebyallowed. 52.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisherebypartlyallowed. 53.Inthecombinedresultallthefourappealsfiledbytheassesseearepartly allowed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton29/11/2023atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (MADHUMITAROY)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated29/11/2023 Manish