Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajshibhai Meramanbhai on 2 May, 2013
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s)V/SRAJSHIBHAI MERAMANBHAI ODEDARA....Opponent(s) O/TAXAP/422/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 422 of 2013 With TAX APPEAL NO. 423 of 2013 TO TAX APPEAL NO. 426 of 2013 ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus RAJSHIBHAI MERAMANBHAI ODEDARA....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR PRANAV G DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 02/05/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Department has filed these appeals challenging the common judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.12.2012. For the purpose of this order, we may record facts as arising in Tax Appeal No.422/2013. In the said case for the assessment year 2001-2002, Revenue has framed the following questions for our consideration :
(A) Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting the addition of Rs.12,64,938/- made by the AO on account of income from undisclosed sources?
(B) Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has not discharged his onus by producing documentary evidence to explain the so called deposits to the extent of Rs.15,40,938/- in his bank account and has also not proved the genuineness of transactions and that the order of the CIT(A) was entirely based on the cash flow statement submitted by the AR of the assessee before the CIT(A) which was totally baseless and was not supported by any documentary evidences?
The issue pertained to deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer of various sums found credited in the bank account of the respondent assessee for which the assessee could not render satisfactory explanation at the outset. Assessee carried the matter in appeal. In the appellate proceedings, the Commissioner admitted additional evidence after calling for remand report. On the basis of such additional material and other materials on record, CIT(Appeals) reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer. Revenue s appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed on the following grounds :
8.4 Furthermore, on merits, in this case the assessing authority did not consider each and every amount of deposits in such bank account of the assessee and his family members separately as unexplained deposit but he has taken only a general view of total credits of Rs.1540938/- found made in various bank accounts. Such aggregate additions so made also does not stand test of scrutiny. That besides the assessee in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has explained the deposits to the satisfaction of the ld. CIT(A) that the advances given by cheques from the same bank account in earlier years to various parties stood recovered by the assessee. Confirmation of such parties were also laid on his record but the assessing authority has not offered any comments thereon in remand proceedings. The AO did not bring any adverse material to show that the recovery of such advances from those persons is not real nor he was able to show that the transactions so stated for making of advances and recovery thereof is not in agreement with the entries recorded in bank statement that were laid on his record in assessment proceedings. The factum of earning of agricultural income by the assessee and his family members in neither disputed by the assessing authority in the assessment order nor in the remand proceedings. The cash deposits appearing in the bank account are found to be much less than the amount of agricultural income admitted in his hands and the withdrawals made in cash from the same accounts. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee while considering the recovery of total advances and the agricultural income as well as circulation of cash withdrawn from the bank accounts itself. The position that the ld.
CIT(A) found is that the overall amount of such recovery, agricultural income and cash availability do not exceed the amount of aggregate deposits appearing in the bank account of the assessee and his family members. He, therefore, was satisfied on facts with the explanation thereon. In the absence of any adverse material, the deletion of addition for such reasoning does not call for any interference.
From the above discussion, it can be seen that the entire issue is based on appreciation of facts. CIT(Appeals) on the basis of materials on record including that allowed to be brought on record during the appellate proceedings after calling for remand report of the Assessing Officer held that credits were duly explained. Tribunal giving its independent reasonings agreed with such a view. In our opinion, no question of law arises.
Before closing, we clarify that we should not be seen to have confirmed the Tribunal s opinion that when certain cash credits are found in the bank account but not shown in the accounts since no such accounts were maintained by the assessee, cannot be the subject matter of addition under section 68 of the Act.
In the result, Tax Appeals are dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) raghu Page 4 of 4