The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Surat V. Shri Bansilal C.Bhaiya, Tamilnadu

ITSSA 486/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0576 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P VAISHANV
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . IT(SS)A. NOS. 486 TO 488/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, SURAT APPELLANT VS. SHRI BANSILAL C. BHAIYA NO.17, GODOWN STREET, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU RESPONDENT PAN: AABPB7685B / BY REVENUE :SHRI O. P. VAISHANV, CIT.D.R. / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI RASESH SHAH, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING :26.03.2015 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :30.03.2015 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO SAME ASSESSEE FILED BY REVENUE ARE ARISING OUT FROM THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A)- II, AHMEDABAD, DATED 08.06.2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07, 2 007-08 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 486 TO 488/AHD/11 FOR A.YS. 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 (ACIT VS. SHRI BNSILAL C. BHAIYA) PAGE 2 2008-09, SO THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF CO MMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN IT(SS)A NO. 486/AHD/2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07, RE VENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.52,46,094/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED U/S. 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.1 A SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH JARI & TEXTILE GROUP ON 20.01.2009. DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153C WAS PASSED ON 28. 12.2010 DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.55,02,190/- AFTER MAK ING ADDITION OF RS.52,46,094/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICE R ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69B OF THE AC T INSTEAD OF RETURNED INCOME OF RS.2,56,100/- FILED BY ASSESS EE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT. ADDITION O F RS.3,99,570/- & RS.3,30,036/- WERE MADE BY ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. 2.2 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ASSE SSEE, CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF REVENUE INTER ALIA S UBMITTING THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.52,46,094/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT U/S. 69B OF THE ACT AND INTEREST THEREON FOR SUBSEQ UENT TWO YEARS AND DELETED ADDITION OF INTEREST THEREON FOR SUBSEQUENT IT(SS)A. NOS. 486 TO 488/AHD/11 FOR A.YS. 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 (ACIT VS. SHRI BNSILAL C. BHAIYA) PAGE 3 YEARS. ON OTHER HAND, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 2.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATER IAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT LOOSE PAPER BEARING PAGE NO.83 , ANNEXURE A-1 IS A BASIS FOR ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND SAME DOES NOT CONTAIN NAME OF ANY PERSON. IN THIS SITUA TION, IN CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM PAPER WHETHER ANY LOAN WAS TAKEN OR GIVEN BY ASSESSEE. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS F OUND BY SEARCH PARTY WHICH COULD ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE HA D EITHER MADE ANY INVESTMENT OR FOUND TO BE OWNER OF ANY MON EY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR ANY OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES S O THAT ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE U/S. 69B OF THE ACT. THE SAI D LOOSE PAPER SEIZED WAS NOT IN FORM OF ANY NEGOTIABLE INST RUMENT WHICH COULD HAVE ANY INTRINSIC VALUE. MOREOVER, SE IZED PAPER WITHOUT NAME OF ANY LENDER OR BORROWER HAS NO EVIDE NTIARY VALUE AS IT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED THAT ANY LOAN WAS ADVANCED BY ASSESSEE. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT ASSES SEE BEING RETIRED PERSON WAS NOT RUNNING ANY BUSINESS AT RELE VANT POINT OF TIME. HE VISITED SURAT BECAUSE HIS SON MR. GHAN SHYAM WHO WAS EMPLOYED WITH VISHAL GROUP (VEEKAY PRINTS P. LT D.), WHERE SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 TOOK PLACE. THERE IS NOTHIN G ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING SUCH FINANC IAL POSITION TO HAVE ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.52.46 LACS TO ANY PERS ON. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.52,46,94/- MADE U/S. 69B AND INTERES T THEREON OF RS.3,99570/- & RS.3,30,036/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 IT(SS)A. NOS. 486 TO 488/AHD/11 FOR A.YS. 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 (ACIT VS. SHRI BNSILAL C. BHAIYA) PAGE 4 RESPECTIVELY. IN VIEW OF THIS, THIS ADDITION ALONG WITH INTEREST THEREIN WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY CIT(A) IN THESE YEAR S. 2.4 THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERF ERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) IN ALL YE ARS I.E. A.Y.06-07 TO 08-09. 3. IN RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS FOR ALL THREE YEARS ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 30/03/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA # # # # %& %& %& %& '&' '&' '&' '&' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. ,, - / CONCERNED CIT 4. -- / CIT (A) 5. &12 %, , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 256 78 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / # , 9/ , , ;