PARESH RAMANBHAI AMIN,ANAND V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, ANAND

ITA 1839/AHD/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Paresh Ramanbhai Amin against the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the additions made under section 68 as unexplained cash credit in bank accounts and section 144 regarding unexplained investments in LIC for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The primary contention was that the bank accounts in question were in the name of the appellant's wife, and the transactions were related to her agricultural income, which was not adequately considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the Income Tax Returns of the appellant's wife, which were crucial for the case, were submitted for the first time and needed verification by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23192 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT And Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Paresh Ramanbhai Amin 102, Sarjan Residency, Nr. I.B. Patel Park V.V. Nagar Anand Gujarat-388120 PAN: AFSPA5760L (Appellant) Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Anand (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Dipen Shukhadia, A.R. Revenue Represented: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 11-02-2025 Date of pronouncement : 17-02-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows: ITA No: 1839/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A No. 1839/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No Paresh Ramanbhai Amin vs. ITO 2 1. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 19,81,445/- u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit in bank accounts. 2. The Learned CIT (A) has accounts refereed by A.O. is only joint holder of the Appellant erred in not appreciating the facts that the bank in the name of the Wife of the appellant and appellant said accounts and transactions are not pertain to 3. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,04,588/- in respect of Investment in LIC as unexplained. 4. The Learned CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts that the said amount are paid in cash by the wife of the appellant out of her Agriculture income. The aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to each other and the appellant craves leave to add/delete/alter and/or amend any of grounds as aforesaid as and when necessary. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 19,81,445/- on account of credit entries and cash deposited in four bank accounts. The assessee submitted that two bank account of HDFC Bank Account numbers ending with 50335 and 79573 are in the name of his wife Smt. Nita Amin and her Return of Income copies were already filed before Ld. CIT(A), however he confirmed the additions. 3.1. Similarly another account of HDFC Bank Account number ending with 79270, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.25,579/- wherein Rs. 25,000/- was transferred from his wife account and remaining Rs. 579/- is the Saving Bank Account interest which has been declared in the ITR and the deposit in Corporation Bank was also explained by the assessee. However Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the above additions. I.T.A No. 1839/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No Paresh Ramanbhai Amin vs. ITO 3 3.2. Similarly Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition of Rs.1,04,588/- in respect of investment in LIC is unexplained . The assessee also explained the investment is from her wife out of her agricultural income which is reflecting in the Return of Income filed by her, without considering the same, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition which is required to be deleted. 4. Per contra, Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue, the assessee for the first time produced the copies of the Income Tax Return filed by the assessee’s wife with computation of income, so the matter be set aside to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the same. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Since the Returns of Income of assessee’s wife namely Smt. Nita Amin are filed for the first time relating to the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. We deem it fit to set aside the matter to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the same and pass order in accordance with law by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 17-02-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 17/02/2025 I.T.A No. 1839/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No Paresh Ramanbhai Amin vs. ITO 4 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद "