Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8105 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date
20-07-2012
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
23-05-2012
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
04-02-2010
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI, A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.99 & 143/AHD/2010 & C.O.100/AHD/2010 (A/O ITA NO.143/AHD/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 DHANANJAY H PATEL BAPUS CHORA, JETALPUR, TAL. DASCROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AMRPP5712B DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD DHANANJAY H PATEL BAPUS CHRA, JETALPUR TAL DASCROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD V/S . V/S . V/S . DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD DHANANJAY H PATEL BAPUS CHORA, JETALPUR, TAL. DASCROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) /BY ASSESSEE SHRI P.M. MEHTA, AR /BY REVENUE SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 21-06-2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20-07-2012 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE CROSS-APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND R EVENUE AND CROSS-OBJECTION (CO) FILED BY ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS)-III, AHMEDABAD OF EVEN DATE I.E. ON 11-11-2009 PERTAINS TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07. THE IT(SS)A NO.99, 143/AHD/2010 & CO 100/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 DHANANJAY H PATEL V. DCIT CC-1(1) ABD PAGE 2 ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AROSE FRO M THE RESULT OF SEARCH OPERATION U/S. 132(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) IN THE CASE OF SANJAY R SHAH AND MEEGHMANI GROUP THEREFORE ALL HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS) NO.99/ AHD/2010 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANTS CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE C ANCELLED AS HE HAS PASSED AN ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING AND APPRECIATIN G THE FACTS OF CASE OF APPELLANT. 2(A) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANTS CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT UNDER WHICH THE AS SESSMENT ORDER IS FRAMED IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION AND THUS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AUTHORITIES BELOW INITIO. IT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. (B) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY AO IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 3(A) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANTS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A DDITION OF RS.1,82,437 FOR UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN. HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED SUCH ADDITION MADE BY AO. (B) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANTS CASE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT SALES CONSIDE RATION DECLARED BY APPELLANT IS WHAT HE HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED AND OUGH T TO HAVE HELD THAT SALES CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND FR OM PREMISES OF THIRD PARTY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED OR APPLIED IN CASE OF APPELLAN T. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, AMOUNT OF RS.44 LACS MENTIONED AS UNPAID AMOUNT IN SEIZED MATERIAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS P ART OF SALE CONSIDERATION FOR VARIOUS AGRICULTURE LANDS MENTIONED IN SUCH SEI ZED DOCUMENT. 4. IN THE LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH OPERATIO N WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SANJAY R SHAH AND MEEGHMANI GROUP BY ISSUING A WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT ON 22-09-2005 AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTS/ BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES WERE FOUND AND S EIZED FROM THE VARIOUS IT(SS)A NO.99, 143/AHD/2010 & CO 100/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 DHANANJAY H PATEL V. DCIT CC-1(1) ABD PAGE 3 PREMISES COVERED U/S. 132(1) AND 132(1A) OF THE ACT . A NOTICE U/S. 143(2), 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 20-08-2007 AND SERVED BY SPEED POST UPON THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT U/S.153A RWS 153B(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THER EAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 1 44 RWS 153A RWS 153C RWS 153B(1)(B), WHEREBY THE ADDITION OF RS.96,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, RS.1,15,860/- FOR UNEXPLAINED BUSINESS IN COME, UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIDT OF RS.1.85 LAKH AND THE ADDITION OF RS.4,78 ,535/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG FOR SHORT) WAS MADE. AGAIN ST THIS ORDER, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) RAISING VARIOUS G ROUND. THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 1. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND HENCE DESERVES T O BE CANCELLED. 2. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE PRESENT ORDER WITH OUT HAVING ANY JURISDICTION ON THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ASSESSME NT ORDER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THUS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO. 3. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FRAM ED IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION AND THUS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO IT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED ON T HIS GROUND ITSELF. 4. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING THE A DDITION OF RS.96,000 FOR UNEXPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WHEN NO SUCH ADDITIO N IS CALLED FOR. IT MAY BE DELETED. 5. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING THE A DDITION OF RS.1,15,880 FOR UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS INCOME WHEN NO SUCH ADDITION I S CALLED FOR. IT MAY BE DELETED. 6. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING THE A DDITION OF RS.12,85,197 FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WHEN NO SUCH ADDITION IS CA LLED FOR. IT MAY BE DELETED. 7. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING THE A DDITION OF RS.3,64,778 FOR UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAINS WHEN NO SUCH ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. IT MAY BE DELETED. IT(SS)A NO.99, 143/AHD/2010 & CO 100/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 DHANANJAY H PATEL V. DCIT CC-1(1) ABD PAGE 4 8. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CHARGING INT EREST U/S. 234A, 234B 234C AND 234D OF THE I.T. ACT, WHEN NO SUCH INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE. IT MAY BE DELETED. 9. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN INITIATING T HE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) WHEN NO SUCH PENALTY IS LEV IABLE. HE MAY BE DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW SUCH PROCEEDINGS. 10. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN INITIATING T HE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) WHEN NO SUCH PENALTY IS LEV IABLE. HE MAY BE DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW SUCH PROCEEDINGS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE LD. CIT(A) PARTY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE RELIED UPON THE SYNOPSIS FILED ON 20-06-2012 AND PLACED ON RECORD. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT THIS GROUND HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A). IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD AR THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 3A R.W.S. 153B(1) OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE CONTRARY LD. SR-DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LD. AR HAS RELIED UPON THE SYNOPSIS, SAM E ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 HEARING OF THE ABOVE REFERRED PART-HEARD MATTERS IS FIXED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS ON 23-5-2012 . IT(SS)A NO.99, 143/AHD/2010 & CO 100/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 DHANANJAY H PATEL V. DCIT CC-1(1) ABD PAGE 5 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL NO. IT[SS]A NO.99/A/2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 144 R.W.S. 153A R.W.S 153C R.W.S 153B(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT AND IN THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE DEPARTMENTA L APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. AT THE OUTSET, THE ASSESSEE RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS BE FORE YOUR HONOURS HAT THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING C.OS. NO.100/A/2010 IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS NOT PRESSED. HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED AS SOT PRESSED. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE HAVE TO BRING TO YOUR HONOUR S KIND NOTICE, THE ORDER DATED 7-6-2012 PASSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, AHMEDABA D BENCH-D IN OTHER ASSESSEES OF THE SAME GROUP WHEREIN SIMILAR ISSUE W AS INVOLVED CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ON THE SAM E GROUND, YOUR HONOURS HAVE TAKEN A DECISION VIDE PARA-7 ON PAGE-7 OF THE SAID ORDER AS UNDER:- WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED JURISDICTION AS WELL AS VALIDITY OF THE INITIATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY AS SESSING OFFICER U/S. 153A/153. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT ADMIT TEDLY NO SEARCH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE AND NO DOCUMENT WAS RECOVERED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASS ESSEE AND NO DOCUMENT WAS RECOVERED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASS ESSEE. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THIS ISSUE DESPITE A SPECIFIC GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A ) IS THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15 3A/153C OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED AND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE FORMING OF THE PROVISIONS. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THIS ISSUE OF HIS JURISDICTION AND VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT OF SPECIFIC GROUND HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT BACK THIS MATTER TO LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. A COPY OF THE SAID DECISION IS ATTACHED HEREWITH FO R YOUR HONOURS KIND PERUSAL. AS THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE IDENTICAL W ITH THE OTHER GROUP MEMBERS OF HE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE IN H ONBLE TRIBUNALS ORDER, WE HAVE TO REQUEST YOUR HONOURS TO REMIT BACK THIS MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THI S IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE YEAR 2010 AND HENCE, WE REQUEST Y OUR HONOURS TO KEEP THE SAME PENDING AND ADJOURN THE SAME, AS REQUESTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IT(SS)A NO.99, 143/AHD/2010 & CO 100/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 DHANANJAY H PATEL V. DCIT CC-1(1) ABD PAGE 6 LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 4 TO 6 OF HIS ORDER, SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY:- 4. THE APPELLANT WAS SERVED NOTICE U/S. 153C, CONSE QUENT TO THE SEARCH IN CASE OF SANJAY SHAH AND MEGHAMANI GROUP, ON 22/9/20 05. THE AO NOTED THAT THE RETURN HAD BEEN FILED ORIGINALLY ON 21/7/2006, REVISED ON 9/4/2007 AT THE INCOME OF RS.2,11,8705/-. IN THE RETURN FILED ORIGI NALLY, CAPITAL GAINS HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN. THE AO SERVED NOTICE(S) U/S. 143(2)/142 (1) AND QUESTIONNAIRES AND THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BUT DID NOT FILE RETURN U/S. 153A/153C. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT H AD, IN LETTER DATED 2/10/2007, ADMITTED EXPENSES OF RS.5,000/- PER MONT H ON THE FAMILY INCLUDING HIS WIFE AND SON. THE AO FELT THAT THIS WAS INADEQU ATE AND CONSIDERING FACTORS LIKE INFLATION, EDUCATION OF CHILDREN, SOCIAL/RELIG IOUS FUNCTIONS, ETC., SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT RS.8,000/- PER MONTH AND SINCE NO WITHDR AWALS HAVE BEEN SHOWN, THE ADDITION OF RS.96,000/- WAS MADE. THE AO ALSO N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRADING IN FOOD GRAINS IN THE NAME OF JALARAM T RADING CO. HOWEVER, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT MAINTAINED AND THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO FURNISH INFOMATION/DETAILS WHICH WAS REPEATEDLY REQUIRED, V IDE NOTICES/QUESTIONNAIRES. THE AO THEREFORE FELT THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44 AF WERE APPLICABLE IN CASE OF ASSESSEE WHO WAS A RETAILER AND SO ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF RS.1,15,880/- ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.30.07 LAKHS ( AFTER DEDUCTING THE DISCLOSED BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.34,501/- ). THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT CREDITORS/DEPOSITORS T O THE EXTENT OF RS.12,85,197/- WERE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE- SHEET AS ON 31/3/2006 OF WHICH NO DETAILS WERE FILED. HENCE HE TREATED THEM AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ONE LALITBHAI K PATEL AND KANJTIBHAI PATEL, PART ICULARLY PAGE 94 OF ANNEXURE A4, REVEALED THAT THE LAND COMPRISED IN BLOCK NO. 9 5, 96 AND 113 IN JETHALPUR HAD BEEN TRANSACTED FOR A CONSIDERATION, MUCH HIGHE R THAN WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS OF THE OWNERS, INCLUDING THE APPEND SO CAPITAL GAINS HAVE BEEN UNDERSTATED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,78,535/-. 5.A IN PAGES 6 TO 11 OF HIS ORDER, THE AO DISCUSSED THE STATUS OF THE LAND IN SURVEY NO.95, 96, ITS ACQUISITION BY THE APPELLANT/ OTHER CO-OWNERS, ITS SALE TO KANTIBHAI M PATEL, THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE CO-OW NERS, INCLUDING THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ADIT(INV), OF HAVING RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION BY CHEQUE (AND DISCLOSED) AND IN CASH (DISCLOSED LATER ). THE AO POINTED OUT THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE ORI GINAL RETURN AND EVEN IN THE REVISED RETURN ON THE DISCLOSURE WAS NOT FULL AND T RUE. THE DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE/SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 5/11/2007, (R EPRODUCED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER), WAS ALSO SERVED BUT WAS NOT RESPONDED T O IN ANY MANNER. THE AO THEREAFTER CONSIDERED THE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIO NS AS PER THE SEIZED RECORDS, WHICH WERE ALSO ACCEPTED/VERIFIED AS CORRECT AND AU THENTIC BY SHRI KANTIBHAI, ETC., IN HIS STATEMENTS AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE CO-OWNERS OF THE LAND IN THIS READ, I.E. ADMISSION OF ADDITION THEREFORE COM PUTED IT, AS PER THE SEIZED RECORDS AND DETAILS AND STATEMENTS OF THE PURCHASER S/SELLERS, AND ADDED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT. IT(SS)A NO.99, 143/AHD/2010 & CO 100/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 DHANANJAY H PATEL V. DCIT CC-1(1) ABD PAGE 7 6. BEFORE ME, SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE/FILED, CONTESTI NG THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE AO. THESE ARE CONSIDERED AS UNDER: (I) THE APPELLANT HAS QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER BY ATTEMPTING TO EQUATE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV- B WITH THAT OF SECTION 153A. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A HAVE BEEN TERM ED AS DISCRIMINATORY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE CIT(A) IS NOT THE PROPER FORUM FOR CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS . THIS LEGAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS HENCE REJECTED. (II) IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPE NSES IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O WAS INFORMED OF THE EXPENSES AND THEIR ADEQUACY. TH ERE WERE WITHDRAWALS BY THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AS WELL. CASH WITHDRAWALS (NET) ASSESSMENT YEARS NAME 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2004-0 5 2005-06 A/C YEAR 99-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 20 04-05 2005-06 SATISHBHAI H PATEL A/C/.4866 ADC BANK, JETLPUR 95,000 113,500 55,000 NIL NIL 43,875 NIL DILIPBHAI H PATEL A/C 4760 ADC BANK JETALPUR 140,000 61,500 46,243 NI, NIL 122,000 10,000 HARSHABHHAI H PATEL A/C 4775 ADC BANK R. MAHENDRAKUMAR & CO. 12,065 27,500 34,500 36,000 42,000 36,000 36,000 DHANANJAY H PATEL A/C 4776 ADC BANK JETALPUR M/S AMI ENTER. 5,500 NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL LEELABEN S PATEL A/C. 4866 55,000 76,500 20,000 50,000 NIL 85,000 37,050 MAYANK S PATEL A/C 3794ADC BANK JETALPUR NIL 341 24,078 NIL 50,316 -- NIL MANOJ S PATEL A/C 3012 ADC RADHAKRISHNA RICE MILLS 8,400 5,500 50,000 20,000 30,000 2,500 NIL 23,700 107,591 SHOBHANABEN D PATEL A/C 3040 DENA BANK JETALPUR 54,000 54,000 54,000 ,60,000 59,474 30,000 14,000 TOTAL 369,965 428,788 403,821 148,500 109,790- 340, 575 204,641 SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRI. INCOME AS PER BILLS ENCLOSED -- 89,277 -- --- 153,914 96,500 358,075 TOTAL 360,965 518,065 403,821 148,500 263,704 437, 075 562,716 IT(SS)A NO.99, 143/AHD/2010 & CO 100/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 DHANANJAY H PATEL V. DCIT CC-1(1) ABD PAGE 8 ADDITIONS MADE 336,000 409,200 446,400 483,600 520, 800 558,000 595,200 THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF AGR ICULTURE PRODUCE, COMMUNITY LIVING IN SMALL TOWN CAN ALSO NOT BE DISCOUNTED. TH E AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT HOUSEHOLD EXPEND ITURE INCURRED WERE MORE THAN WHAT WAS DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT/FAMIL Y MEMBERS. SIMILAR ADDITION(S) IN A.Y 2005-06 WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) IN ORDER DATED 27/1/2009. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONS FOR HOUSEHOLD WE RE NOT JUSTIFIED AND ARE DELETED. THE RELATED GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. (III) IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION FOR BUSINESS INCOM E, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN. MOREOVER, THE A PPELLANT WAS A WHOLESALE TRADER OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS IN NAME OF JALARAM T RADING CO. AND INCOME OF RS.34,507/- WAS DISCLOSED. THE AUDIT U/S 44B WAS NO T CARRIED OUT AS THE TURNOVER WAS LESS THAN RS.40 LAKHS. THE AO HAD VIDE HIS QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 20/8/2007 (S.NO. 17) SOUGHT THE ENGLISH/HINDI VERSI ON OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS ANSWERED BY THE APPELLANT AS NIL IN REPLY DATED 2/10/2007. THIS LED THE AO TO BELIEVE THAT PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT MAINTAINED AND BOOK RESULTS WERE TO BE REJECTED. HOWEVER THE AO HA S HIMSELF REFERRED TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.30.07 LAKHS AS PENALTY THE P&L ACCOUNT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S INSISTENCE ON BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOT BEING AUDITED U/S. 44AB WAS MISPLACED. THE AO HAS TAKEN RECOURSE TO SE CTION 44AF WITHOUT DETAILING HOW AND WHY THE OTHER ENTRIES IN THE P&L ACCOUNT WERE ALL COOKED UP/UNVERIFIABLE. THUS THE CONCLUSION DRAWN AND APPL ICATION OF SECTION 44AF WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,381/- IS DELETED. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED JURISDICTION A S WELL AS VALIDITY OF THE INITIATION THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A/153C. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT ADMITTEDLY NO SEAR CH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO DOCUMENT WAS RECOVERED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS NOT DECIDED THIS ISSUE DESPITE A SPECIFIC GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A) IS THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 153A/153C OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED AND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL CHA LLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE FORMING THE PROVISIO NS. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THIS ISSUE OF HIS JURISDICTION AND VALI DITY OF ASSESSMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT OF SPECIFIC GROUND HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER, AND THE DECISION OF ITAT-D BENCH IN OTHER A SSESSEES OF THE SAME GROUP IN IT(SS)A NO.100 TO 107/AHD/2010 ORDER DATED 07/06/2012 AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT BACK THIS MATTER TO L D. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH IT(SS)A NO.99, 143/AHD/2010 & CO 100/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 DHANANJAY H PATEL V. DCIT CC-1(1) ABD PAGE 9 AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. NOW WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN IT(SS) NO.143/AH D/2010. 9. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THIS APPEAL WITH THE FACTS OF IT(SS)A NO.99/AHD/2010 OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ASSESSEES AP PEAL IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) HENCE WE ALSO REMIT BACK THE APPEAL OF REVENUE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, THEREFOR E APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. NOW COMING TO ASSESSEES CO NO.100/AHD/2010, LD . AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT HE IS INSTRUCTED BY ASSESS EE NOT TO PRESS. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE CO OF ASSESSEE AS NOT PRESSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE CROSS-APPEALS OF ASSESSEE A ND REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES; BUT THE CO OF ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (KUL BHARAT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, *DKP - 20/07/2012 !'# $ % & & & & '(()*+ '(()*+ '(()*+ '(()*+ !,* !,* !,* !,* / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. !+.) /0 / APPELLANT 2. '12/0 / RESPONDENT 3. $(4 2 25 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 2 25- !+.) / CIT (A) 5. *8 9.2 '(((4, 2 !+.).2 !(4, !'# $ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD IT(SS)A NO.99, 143/AHD/2010 & CO 100/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 DHANANJAY H PATEL V. DCIT CC-1(1) ABD PAGE 10 6. 9 <= > ?) / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ & , /TRUE COPY/ @+/' 2 + . 2 !+.).2 !(4, !'# $ % STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY O F ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 13/07 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE NO 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 16/07 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 16/07 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 17/07 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 20/07 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD-PART HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THE FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 20/07
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
1:1 Consultation with family dentist -Your Smile Deserves the Best Care!
₹250
Object Clause - Merchant Banking Business
Mehul₹100
Memorandum Amendment Resolution
₹0
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026