Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Mrs. Nirmalaben C. Soni,, Surat vs The Acit, Circle-6,, Surat on 31 January, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"SURAT" BENCH, SURAT
BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &
Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.3173/Ahd/2014
(Assessment Year : 2010-11)
Mrs. Nirmalaben C. Soni, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of
Prop. of Mahalaxmi Income Tax,
Jewellers, B/14-2, Sadhna Circle - 6,
Tower, Sardar Baug, Surat - 395 001.
Station Road, Bardoli,
Surat-394 601.
[PAN No. AKVPS 5220 M]
(Appellant) .. (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Bipin Jatiwala, A.R.
Respondent by : Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing 22/11/2018
Date of P ronouncement 31/01/2019
ORDER
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Surat arising out of the assessment order dated 22.03.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 passed by the ACIT-6, Surat under section (u/s) 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to "The Act") with the following grounds:
1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.4,29,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on unsecured loans.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.10,383/- on account of alleged interest expense on disallowed unsecured loan.-2- ITA No.3173/A/14
Mrs. Nirmalaben C. Soni vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2010-11
3. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.
4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal."
2. The assessee, filed her return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 showing total income of Rs. 77,77,266/- through Electronic Media on 31.03.2011. Upon scrutiny a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 13.09.2011 was issued followed by a further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 30.04.2012 and a notice u/s 142(1) along with a detailed questionnaire dated 10.10.2012 was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the above notices, details and other documents were duly furnished by the assessee. It appears from the record that the assessee during the year under consideration was engaged in the business of resale and job work of Gold and Silver Jewellery. A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee at B-1 & 2 Sadhana Tower, Sardar Baug, Station Road Bardoli on 10.10.2009. Statement on oath of Shri Prakeshchandra P. Soni, husband and constituted attorney of the assessee admitted that the assessee has earned additional income of Rs. 75,00,013/- during the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11. Upon perusal of the Balance Sheet it further revealed that unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 4,29,000/- was found to be taken by the assessee from the following persons:
i. Smt. Shantiben H. Parekh ii. Smt. Lataben Patel iii. Shri Sureshbhai Patel
3. A show-cause dated 15.03.2013, therefore was issued to the assessee as to why said amount should not be added in her hand u/s 68 of the Act.
4. In response to the same, the assessee submitted that Smt. Shantiben H. Parekh is a senior citizen, the mother of the assessee regularly files her return of income, in fact in the previous year under consideration she filed her return showing Gross Rental Income to the tune of Rs. 3,48,000/- and the total taxable income was shown at Rs.2,46,951/-. It -3- ITA No.3173/A/14 Mrs. Nirmalaben C. Soni vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2010-11 was further contended that assessee was given loan by her on 27.03.2010 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- confirmation whereof being an account, Surat Dist. Bank Pass-Book along with the return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 were duly submitted before the Learned AO. So far as, Smt. Lataben Bipinchandra Patel is concerned, the assessee also submitted the confirmation of account through which an account payee cheque was given to the assessee of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 15.12.2009 as loan along with the copy of the Bank Statement has also submitted before the Learned AO. Finally, regarding Shri Sureshbhai Patel, the assessee submitted before the Learned AO that Shri Sureshbhai Patel is a born agriculturist and family friend who has given the loan amounting to Rs. 60,000/- by an account payee cheque on 15.12.2009 to the assessee. The copy of the Bank Statement and income proof from Bardoli Sugar in support of the unsecured loan received by the assessee was also duly submitted before the Learned AO. However, the explanation so submitted by the assessee was not found acceptable by the Learned AO and the entire amount to the tune of Rs. 4,29,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee on account of alleged cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on unsecured loan upon which appeal was preferred by the assessee but without any success. Hence, the instant appeal before us.
5. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the loan which was taken from his mother is having a regular rental income details whereof have also been placed before us. The same was also evident from the order of the Learned CIT(A) before us. Similarly, the amount so taken as loan from Shri Sureshbhai Patel and from Smt. Lataben Bipinchandra Patel genuineness of such transactions was also been supported by documents being Bank Statements of the concerned banks through which such amount has been paid to the assessee. It was further contended that Shri Sureshbhai Patel is running sugar factory and earning more than 4 lacs per annum, which is also evident from the Bank Statement of the Sugar factory submitted by him. Though all the documents relating to the transaction -4- ITA No.3173/A/14 Mrs. Nirmalaben C. Soni vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2010-11 were duly placed by the assessee before the authorities below, the assessee submitted that those documents were not taken into consideration in its proper prospective and without any proper basis. The same was denied and added to the income of the assessee. On the other hand, Learned Representative of the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the authorities below.
6. Heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available before us on record. It appears from the records that in respect of the loan to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- from Smt Shantiben H Parekh, the double senior citizen widow lender the assessee submitted her bank pass book of the Surat District Bank Corporate Ltd up to 06.08.2014 in support of her rental income, interest income along with the conformation and the return of income of relevant years. The credit worthiness of Shri Sureshbhai D. Patel, a born agriculturist was sought to be established by the assessee by submitting duly signed confirmation of account along with the copy of the bank statement and proof of agricultural income from Bardoli Sugar factory in support of the unsecured loan given to the appellant during the previous year. Proof of holding agricultural land along with the confirmation account of Bardoli sugar factory and the statement of Indusind bank, Bardoli brunch were duly submitted by the assessee in the order to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The copy of the bank statement duly signed in support of the unsecured loan to the tune of rupees one lakh received by the assessee from Smt Lataben Bipinchandra Patel was also submitted before the authorities below. Therefore in order to establish the genuineness of the transaction the assessee supplied the relevant details of the concerned persons to the assessing officer and thus discharged her primary onus. With utter surprise we find no inquiry in order to come to a conclusion before making addition in the hands of the assessee has been conducted by the learned AO. It is relevant to mention that all transactions were routed through banking channels and the assessee duly explained source of income of those creditors. The additions, therefore, cannot be made under section 68 of the act without due process of law. Further that no deliberation -5- ITA No.3173/A/14 Mrs. Nirmalaben C. Soni vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2010-11 on this score was made either by the first appellate authority when the same was again placed before him by the assessee. No remand report, even was not called for by the first appellate authority from the assessing officer before justifying the addition made by the learned AO. In the absence of any contrary evidence against the assessee up on inquiry made by the authorities below such addition, in our considered view, cannot be sustained in the present facts and circumstances of the case. We, thus, delete the addition made by the authorities below.
7. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/01/2019
Sd/- Sd/-
( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( Ms. MADHUMITA ROY )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 31/01/2019
Priti Yadav, Sr.PS
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-I, Surat.
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER,
स या पत त //True Copy//
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar)
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
1. Date of dictation 24/01/2019 (Dictation Pages 5)
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 31/01/2019
3. Other Member.............
4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S
5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement...
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..................