Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Shantilal M.Darji, Baroda vs Assessee on 19 September, 2013
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Ûयायपीठ, Ûयायपीठ, "एकल एकल सदःय", सदःय , अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " SMC" BENCH, AHMEDABAD सम¢ ौी बी.पी.जैन, लेखा सदःय ।
BEFORE SHRI B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3167/Ahd/2008 ( िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2000-01) Shantilal M.Darji बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer L-50, Vauikunth Vs. Ward-6(2) Bungalow-2 Baroda New VIP Road Baroda ःथायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . / PAN/GIR No. : AFJPD 9337 B (अपीलाथȸ /Appellant) .. (ू×यथȸ / Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S.N.Divatia AR ू×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri B.L. Yadav, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 19/09/2013 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 19/09/2013 आदे श / O R D E R This appeal of the Assessee arises from the order of the ld.CIT(Appeals)-VI, Baroda dated 02/06/2008 for the Asstt.Year 2000-
01. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1) That the Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15000/- being purchase value of NSC on the alleged ground that the said investment is out of undisclosed income.
The learned CIT(Appeals), in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have added the investment in NSC as income from undisclosed sources.
ITA No.3167/Ahd/2008Shantilal M. Darji vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2000-01 -2-
2) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.50000/- being investment made by Niruben S.Darji in NSC, PPF & KVP to the total income of your appellant as investment out of unexplained sources.
The learned CIT(Appeals) in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have added the investment in NSC, PPF & KVP to the total income of your appellant as investment out of unexplained sources.
3) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.20000/- being investment in KVP by Smt.Ina/Hiren Darji on 24/2/2000 on the ground that the same is unexplained. The learned CIT(Appeals) in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have added the investment in KVP by Smt.Ina/Hiren Darji on 24/2/2000 on the ground that the same is unexplained.
4) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.40000/- being investment made in PPF on 20/10/99 in the name of Miss Palak S.Darji and Hiren S.Darji on the ground that the same is unexplained.
The learned CIT(Appeals), in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have added the investment made in PPF on 20/10/99 in the name of Miss Palak S.Darji and Hiren S.Darji on the ground that the same is unexplained.
5) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.60000/- being deposit made in P.O deposit A/c in the name of Shri Hiren S.Darji & Chhabildas M.Darji on the ground that the same is unexplained.
The learned CI(Appeals), in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have added any amount out of the deposit made by Shri Chhabildas M.Darji.
6) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.30000/- deposited on 7/4/99 with Corporation Bank, Gandhi Nagar treating the same as out of unexplained income.
ITA No.3167/Ahd/2008Shantilal M. Darji vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2000-01 -3- The learned CIT(Appeals), in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have added the amount of Rs.30000/- deposited in his bank A/c.
7) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of RS.50000/- being investment made as application money for shares of Cadila Health Care on the ground that the same is made out of unexplained income.
The learned CIT(Apepals), in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have added the investment made as application money for sources of Cadila Health Care.
8) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.30000/- being deposit in Bank A/c. of Smt.Niruben S.Darji on the ground that the same is unexplained. The learned CIT(Appeals), in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have added the amount of RS.30000/- deposited in Bank A/c of Smt.Niruben S.Darji.
9) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.251433/- after adopting the inflow and outgoings without considering the opening balance in cash book. The learned CIT(Appeals), in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have added the amount of Rs.251433/- and ought to have consider the opening balances.
Your appellant reserves to himself the right to alter, amend or add to the existing grounds of appeal and advance further arguments at the time of hearing of appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has made investments in cash in his name and in his family members. On receiving information from DDIT (Investigation) Baroda, the case was reopened u/s.147 of the IT Act, 1961 and the assessee was required to explain the said investments. The assessee submitted explanation which ITA No.3167/Ahd/2008 Shantilal M. Darji vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2000-01 -4- were not found satisfactory and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,85,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 and Rs.1,10,000/- u/s.68 of the Act, totalling to Rs.2,95,000/-.
2.1. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted the cash-flow statement and after considering the explanation of the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) observed that the said investments are unexplained to the extent of Rs.2,51,433/- as per his order contained in paragraph No.4.3.
3. The ld.counsel for the assessee argued that the ld.CIT(A) has not considered the cash-flow statement submitted before him in a right perspective and, therefore, prayed for considering the said cash-flow statement and allowed the appeal of the assessee wherein all the sources were stood explained.
3.1. On the other hand, ld.DR of the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. On perusal of the orders of the ld.CIT(A) and that of the AO, it is found that the ld.CIT(A) has considered the cash-flow statement, but not in its entirety for the reasons mentioned in his order. There are certain errors in the order of the ld.CIT(A), i.e. the assessee has submitted that investments of Rs.20,000/- made on 24/02/2000 in KVP, the said amount was invested out of cash available with Smt.Niruben S.Darji who had encashed the KVP of Rs.20,000/- on 18/02/2000 which were purchased in the year 1994. The ld.CIT(A) has not considered the said sources of ITA No.3167/Ahd/2008 Shantilal M. Darji vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2000-01 -5- cash available. Accordingly, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is modified to this extent and the AO is directed to allow a relief of Rs.20,000/- as directed hereinabove.
4.1. As regards, the source of income, Smt.Niruben S.Darji has stated that she has been earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- from tailoring work and she has received a sum of Rs.10,000/- per annum from her relatives on social occasions. The said submission cannot be rejected outrightly since a lady normally keeps some cash as 'Streedhan' which is received by her from her relatives on different occasions and, accordingly in the circumstances and facts of the present case, the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in totally rejecting the submissions of the assessee. Accordingly, in the circumstances and facts of the present case, it will be reasonable to admit the source of cash available with Smt.Niruben S.Darji amounting to Rs.75,000/- contributed to the investments made by the assessee. Therefore, the AO is directed to consider the said sum of Rs.75,000/- apart from Rs.20,000/- mentioned hereinabove and allow the relief accordingly. Thus, all the grounds raised in assessee's appeal are partly allowed.
5. In the result, Assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove Sd/-
( बी.पी.जैन )
लेखा सदःय
( B.P. JAIN )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 19/ 09s/2013
टȣ.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
ITA No.3167/Ahd/2008
Shantilal M. Darji vs. ITO
Asst.Year - 2000-01
-6-
आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषत/Copy
षत of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant
2. ू×यथȸ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)-VI, Baroda
5. ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप/ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
1. Date of dictation ......19.9.13 (dictation-pad 6 pages attached with the file)
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member .........19.9.13
3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S.................
4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement......
5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member............
6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S.......
7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.....................
8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk..........................................
9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..........................
10. Date of Despatch of the Order..................