Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Shri Mansi Vikas Shah,, Ahmedabad vs The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 10 December, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "B" BENCH
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member
And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member
IT(SS)A Nos. 75 to 78 /Ahd/2017
AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 to 2013-14
Mansi Vikas S hah, The ACIT,
210, Anal Flat s, Navr angpura, Cir cle-2(2),
Ahmedabad-3800 09 Vs Ahmedabad-3800 09
PAN: CJCPS9102 G (Respo ndent )
(App ellant )
IT(SS)A Nos. 79 to 82 /Ahd/2017
AY 2007-08 & 2011-12 to 2013-14
Chhaya Vik as S hah, 210, The ACIT,
Anal F lat s, Navrangpur a, Cir cle-2(2),
Ahmedabad-3800 09 Vs Ahmedabad-3800 09
PAN: AQKPS096 7J (Respo ndent )
(App ellant )
Revenue by: Shri K rishna Mu ra ri, CIT-D.R.
Assessee by: Shri G.C. Pipara , A.R.
Dat e o f hear ing : 01-11-2018
Dat e o f pro no uncement : 10-12-2018
आदेश /ORDER
PER BENCH:-
These eight appeals filed by two different assessees, namely; Mansi Vikas Shah and Chhaya Vikas Shah for assessment year 2007-08, 2009-10 and 2011-12 to 2013-14 against the order of ld. CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad dated 03-10-2016; in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.I.T.(SS)A No. 75 to 82/Ahd/2017 Page No 2
Mansi Vikas Shah & Chhaya Vikas Shah vs. ACIT IT(SS)A No 75/Ahd/2017 assessment year 2009-10
2. There was a search action u/s. 132 of the act conducted in the case of Vikas A. Shah father of the assessee. During the course of search of locker no. D-644 with Nutan Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. held jointly by the assessee and her mother Chhaya cash and jewelry were found as per annexure CF dated 4th Feb, 2013 annexed to Panchnama dated 4th Feb, 2013.
3. The issue in the appeal of the assessee was related to addition of Rs. 1,59,665/- for diamond/perl found to be purchased vide bill dated 25th Nov, 2008 added by the assessing officer to the total income of the assessee as unexplained u/s. 69B of the act. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer on the ground that assessee has not explained the source of fund available for making investment in the aforesaid diamond/perl found during the course of search on the basis of aforesaid purchased bill. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. course has contended that assessing officer has not consider the CBDT instruction no. 1916 dated 11 May, 1994 while adding the same as unaccounted investment in the income of the assessee. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative has supported the order of ld. CIT(A).
4. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record carefully. It is noticed that assessing officer duly granted the benefit as envisaged under CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11th May, 1994 in respect of gold jewelry and ornaments found and seized during the course of search. However, the impugned addition was made in respect of diamond/perl purchased as reflected in the purchase bill in the name of the assessee dated 25-11-2008 which is not covered by the aforesaid instruction, therefore, after considering the detailed finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the source of investment as per purchase bill dated 25-11-2008 was remained un-explained in spite of giving opportunities to the assessee, we do not find any error in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
I.T.(SS)A No. 75 to 82/Ahd/2017 Page No 3Mansi Vikas Shah & Chhaya Vikas Shah vs. ACIT IT(SS)A Nos. 76 to 78 & 80 to 82/Ahd/2017
5. Ground Nos. 1-2 of IT(SS)A 76/Ahd/2017 and ground nos. 1, 2 & 3 of IT(SS)A No. 77/Ahd/2017 and ground nos. 1 & 2 of 78/Ahd/2017, ground no. 1 of IT(SS)A No. 80/Ahd/2017 and ground nos. 1 to 3 of IT(SS)A No. 81/Ahd/2017 and ground nos. 1 to 2 of IT(SS)A No. 82/Ahd/2017 based on identical issue and identical facts, therefore, for the sake of convenience all these grounds are adjudicated together by taking IT(SS)A 76/Ahd/2017 as the lead case and its finding will be applicable to the other grounds of different appeals.
6. During the course of search, the documents were seized and inventoried as per annexure-A and AA. As per page 28 of annexure AA/2, the assessing officer has stated that assessee has made investment of Rs. 7 lacs in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12. During the course of assessment, the assessee was called upon to explain the source of investment in the share along with supporting evidences. The assessing officer has stated that before issuing cheque of Rs. 7 lacs assessee has deposited a cash of Rs. 6,90,000/- on 19th April, 2010 in his bank account and the assessee has failed to substantiate the source of deposit in the saving account with supporting evidences. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 7 lacs was added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69 of the act. Regarding second ground of appeal an addition on account of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 41,000/- in ICICI bank account, the assessing officer has stated that on verification of assessee's bank account with ICICI bank it was found that assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 41,000/- during F.Y. 2010-11. However, the assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposit with supporting evidences. Therefore, the said cash deposit was treated as unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee and sustained the addition of Rs. 7 lacs and Rs. 41,000/- as unexplained investment on the ground that assessee has failed to substantiate the source of investment with supporting evidences. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has submitted paper book containing detail of information I.T.(SS)A No. 75 to 82/Ahd/2017 Page No 4 Mansi Vikas Shah & Chhaya Vikas Shah vs. ACIT submitted before assessing officer and before ld. CIT(A) during the course of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings. The ld. counsel has also contended that ld. CIT(A) has not considered the additional evidences filed during the course of appellate proceedings and, therefore, the decision of ld. CIT(A) is not justified. Vide letter dated 31st October, 2018 the assessee has submitted that certain evidences for assessment year 2011-12 to 2013-14 in the form of cash book, gift, income account etc. for the relevant period were furnished before the ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings. However, necessary prayer for admission of such additional evidences under rule 46A of the Income Tax Act, 1962 could not be made as the authorized representative of the asseseee was not clear about whether these evidences were filed before the assessing officer or not. It was also contended by the assessee that these evidences pertain to the root issue involved in the appeal. On the other hand, the ld. departmental representative has supported the order of ld. CIT(A).
7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record carefully. It is undisputed fact that the additional evidences as supra mentioned in this order were not examined/verified by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that necessary prayer under rule 46A was not made. After considering the submission of the assessee that certain evidences in the form of cash, gift income account etc. as stated above were submitted but formal prayer under rule 46A could not be made inadvertently as the authorized representative of the assesee was not sure about the submission of those documents before the assessing officer during assessment proceedings. After considering the above facts, we observe that there appear to be a bona fide reason for not making formal prayer under rule 46A , therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that it will be appropriate to restore this issue to the file of assessing officer for re-adjudication of this matter afresh after verification and examination of the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing officer is directed to decide the matter afresh as directed above after affording adequate opportunities to the assessee. Therefore the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
I.T.(SS)A No. 75 to 82/Ahd/2017 Page No 5 Mansi Vikas Shah & Chhaya Vikas Shah vs. ACIT
8. IT(SS)A No. 77/Ahd/2017 ground no. 4, ground no. 3 of IT(SS)A 78/Ahd/2017, Ground nos. 4&5 of IT(SS)A 81/Ahd/2017, ground no. 3, 4, & 5 of IT(SS)A No. 82/Ahd/2017 the identical facts and issue are involved in these grounds of appeal, therefore, for the sake of convenience these grounds of appeals are adjudicated by taking the facts of IT(SS)A 81/Ahd/17 as lead case.
9. During the course of assessment proceedings, on verification of statement of income filed by the assessee, the assessing officer has stated that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 3820 u/s. 80C of the act. During the course of assessment, the assessee was asked to produce the evidence in support of claim of deduction u/s. 80C. However, the assessee has not furnished any supporting evidence, therefore, the assessing officer has disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 3820 u/s. 80C of the act. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessing officer has also noticed that assessee has shown dividend income from various companies aggregating to Rs. 6854/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has asked the assessee to furnish the detail of all demat account/shareholding statement to substantiate the earning of dividend income as claimed exempt in the statement. However, the assessing officer has not submitted the information, therefore, the claim of exempt income was rejected and the same was added to the total income of the assessee. In the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) has sustained both the additions of Rs. 3820/- + Rs. 6858/- in respect of deduction u/s. 80C and exempt income respectively on the ground that assessee has not substantiated the respective claims. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has submitted that claim of deduction 80C of the act is pertained to the payment of LIC premium and dividend receipt pertained to earning of dividend income from various companies in which the assessee has made investment. He has contended that assessing officer has not verified the same from the dividend receipt, LIC receipt and from the bank statement of the assessee. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative has supported the order of ld. CIT(A). After considering the fact that assessee has been paying LIC premium year after year and dividend income has also been reported in the bank statement, we are of the opinion that in the interest of I.T.(SS)A No. 75 to 82/Ahd/2017 Page No 6 Mansi Vikas Shah & Chhaya Vikas Shah vs. ACIT justice, it will be appropriate to restore this issue also to the file of assessing officer to re- adjudicate it after examination and verification of the relevant evidences to be produced by the assessee in the set aside proceedings. Therefore, this matter is restored to the assessing officer for deciding afresh as directed above after providing proper opportunity to the assessee.
IT(SS)A No. 79/Ahd/2017
10. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has submitted that these grounds of appeal are not pressed, therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed.
11. In the result, IT(SS)A Nos. 75 & 79/Ahd/2017 are dismissed and IT(SS)A Nos. 76 to 78/Ahd/2017 and IT(SS)A 80, 81 & 82/Ahd/2017 are allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 10-12-2018 Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad : Dated 10/12/2018
आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / 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 अपील य अ धकरण,
अहमदाबाद