Harshadray S Kothari, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-7(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 984/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0445 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment
• Section: 68; 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA No.984/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) ITA No.984/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Harshadray S. Kothari, vs. The Income Tax Officer C2/65, Kendriya Vihar, Ward 7(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Bopal, Ahmedabad - 380015. [PAN – AAJCA 7372 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Divatia, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 09.12.2021 Date of pronouncement : 07.01.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : “(1) The Hon’ble CIT(A) was grievously wrong in confirming the decision of the Ld. A.O. and made an addition of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of cash deposit made in various banks. The appellant submits that there is total cash withdrawal of Rs.15,00,000/- on 20.07.2015 and out of which an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- has been deposited on 22.07.2015. So there is clear nexus between source of cash deposited and withdrawal and there is no unexplained investment. (2) The appellant has provided the details of cash deposit which was from cash withdrawals and the same was re-deposited, hence there is no ITA No.984/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 2 of 3 unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the IT Act and the Hon’ble CIT(A) was wrong in confirming it as unexplained cash credit. (3) The appellant therefore requests your Honour to kindly delete the above mentioned addition made by the Ld. A.O. which was confirmed by the Hon’ble CIT(A) looking to the merits of the case. (4) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify whether the investment and income relating to securities transactions were duly disclosed or not. The assessee filed return of income on 10.07.2016 declaring total income at Rs.3,82,200/- . Notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 28.07.2017. Notice under Section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 02.05.2018. The assessee submitted his reply stating that there is net sum total of such capital gain which is negative and transactions relating to investments and securities transactions never derived positive income during the year under consideration. During the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted the necessary details of cash deposits made in the bank accounts as well as the cash withdrawals details were also given with date- wise bifurcation. The Assessing Officer observed that on verification of the bank statement of the assessee there was withdrawal of cash amounting toRs.4,50,000/- and the same was re-deposited. The Assessing Officer further observed that the balance cash deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- was unexplained cash credit and hence made addition under Section 68 of the Act to that extent. 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. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not considered the reply of the assessee submitted on 12.12.2018 and, without considering the same, has treated the cash deposits which were from cash withdrawals as unexplained. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of O.G. Sunil vs. DCIT, 383 ITR 617, decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sushil Modi vs. CIT, 59 taxmann.com 63 and order of the Tribunal in the case of Rakeshkumar P. Patel vs. DCIT (ITA No.310/Ahd/2016 dated ITA No.984/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 3 of 3 21.12.2018). The Ld. AR submitted that all these decisions are factually different than the assessee’s case. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the Order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has given the details of cash withdrawal as well as cash deposits on the subsequent dates in his submissions before the Assessing Officer on 12.12.2018 itself. The same was not at all considered by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). After perusal of all the evidences put up before the Assessing Officer and before the CIT(A), it is found that the assessee has explained the cash withdrawals with correlation to cash deposits amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus, the CIT(A) was not correct in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 7 th day of January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Accountant Member Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 7 th day of January, 2022 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