SHRI HARDIK SATISH SHARMA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVI, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 31.12.2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) for the Assessment Year 2008-09 with the following grounds: 1.1 “The order passed u/s.250 on 11-08-2014 for A.Y.2008-09 by CIT(A)-XVI, Abad upholding the addition of Rs.8,60,549/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against I the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned additions.

- 2 - ITA Nos.3184/Ahd/2014 Hardik Satish Sharma vs. The ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.8,60,549/- out of cash deposits in bank account made by appellant's wife-Mrs. Richa Sharma, 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs.8,60,549/- out of cash deposits in bank account made by appellant's wife-Mrs. Richa Sharma. 3.1 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the evidence produced in support of the cash deposits made in bank account by appellant’s wife. 3.2 Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, both the lower authorities has grievously erred in rejecting in toto the cash deposits in bank account out of savings, gifts, sale of jewellery etc. and the same should be accepted taking holistic view of the matter.

It is, therefore, prayed that the addition of Rs.8,60,549/- upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.” 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee engaged in business of Civil Construction work filed his return of income on 09.09.2008 showing total income of Rs.5,11,610/-. The assessee during the year has shown total receipts of Rs.1,53,950/- on which net profit of Rs.1,52,094/- has been declared. The Books of account, Bills and/or vouchers and the Bank Statement were produced and the same were verified on test check basis. In terms of the AIR information, the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.17,58,400/- in a Bank account held in his name in Bank of Baroda, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. While explaining the source of such deposits before the Assessing Officer, the assessee informed that such Bank account was a joint account, his wife Mrs. Richa Sharma opened such account in the year 2001 and only in the year 2003, the assessee joined the same as the second holder of the account. It is the case of the assessee that the assessee’s wife deposited the money in the said account out of her past savings and cash withdrawals out of her past earnings from salary, tuition income, interest income, receipts of various social function, sale of jewellery etc. The opening cash balance of Rs.6,90,530/- as on 01.04.2007 was reflected in her cash book. The pay-in-slips and cheques as obtained from the Bank by the Assessment Officer revealed that most of the

- 3 - ITA Nos.3184/Ahd/2014 Hardik Satish Sharma vs. The ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 instruments were bearing the signature of the assessee. The Learned AO on the basis of such documents came to a conclusion that the transactions were made by the assessee having a successful business of Civil Construction. Further that, the wife of the assessee declared limited sources of income in the form of salary income, tuition income and interest income the return of income. The assessment was finalized with an addition of Rs.8,60,549/-.

In appeal, the Learned CIT(A) confirmed the same. Hence, the assessee is before us.

- 4 - ITA Nos.3184/Ahd/2014 Hardik Satish Sharma vs. The ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 prayed for deletion of addition made by the authorities below. On the contrary, the Learned DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below.

We find that since the pay-in-slips bore the signature of the assessee and not the signature of the assessee’s wife. The Learned AO came to a conclusion that the transactions were made by the assessee and not by his wife. While doing so, the Learned AO did not take into account that the evidence relating to income from salary, stridhan, interest income for a prolong period in relation to the income of the assessee’s wife or that the fact that the preposition of deposing this money in a joint account by the husband by putting his own signature instead of his wife does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the husband has deposited the same from his own income other than the income

- 5 - ITA Nos.3184/Ahd/2014 Hardik Satish Sharma vs. The ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 earned by the wife. Since the genuineness of the source of income of the wife has not been questioned by the authorities below the entire addition cannot be made as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.

However, the entire source of amount so deposited was failed to have been established by the assessee with corroborating evidences. We, therefore, taking into consideration the entire gamut of the matter found it fit and reasonable to allow Rs. 3,00,000/- as the saving of the wife of the assessee from such addition made by the authorities below.

Sd/- Sd/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( Ms. MADHUMITA ROY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 07/03/2019 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS आदेश 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)-XVI, Ahmedabad. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad