Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member [Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad] ITA No. 326/Rjt/2014 Assessment Year 2006-07
Smt. Hiraben Pragjibhai The ITO, Tala Maruti, Hariharnagar, Ward-1(1), UNIV Road, Rajkot Vs Rajkot PAN: ABJPT4267C (Respondent) (Appellant)
Revenue by: Mrs. Namita Khurana, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Aakash Voda, A.R. Date of hearing : 16-07-2019 Date of pronouncement : 13-09-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, arises from order of the CIT(A)-II, Rajkot dated 18-03-2014, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] erred on facts as also in law in retaining disallowance of renovation expenses of Rs. 3,14,052/- claimed by the appellant from the capital gain on the alleged ground that no proof of the same was furnished. The AO be directed to allow the claim of the appellant.
I.T.A No. 326/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 2 Smt. Hiraben Pragjibhai Tala vs. ITO
The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining the addition of Rs.8,55,000/- u/s 68 of the Act by alleging that the appellant failed to discharge initial burden to prove the transaction as genuine. The addition made is in total disregard to the submission of the appellant and is totally unjustified and the same may kindly^be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,66,331/- made u/s 68 of the Act on account of alleged differences in opening balances of capital accounts as per the original return of income and that revised one. The addition made is totally unjustified and may kindly be deleted. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in on fact as also in law in confirming the action of the AO in not accepting the revised accounts furnished along with the revised return of income. The AO be directed to accept the revised accounts. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs. 2,14,600/- made u/s 68 of the Act by holding that the appellant failed to discharge basic ingredients as required u/s 68 of the Act. The addition made being totally unjustified, may kindly be directed to be deleted. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,38, 803/- made u/s 68 of the Act by alleging that appellant failed to discharge its onus of proving difference to the satisfaction of the AO. The addition made is in total disregards to the facts of the case and deserves to be deleted, may kindly deleted. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in not allowing telescoping of funds inter se in respect of additions 7 disallowances made by the AO. The AO be directed to allow the set off of funds as requested.”
The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act was finalized on 8th December, 3. 2008 by determining total income at Rs. 30,01,806/- as against total income of Rs. 1,13,020/-. The assessing officer has made various additions in the assessment completed u/s. 143(3). The relevant facts pertaining to the various additions made by the assessing officer are discussed while adjudicating the various grounds of appeal as under:-
Ground No. 1 is general which does not require any adjudication therefore the same stands dismissed.
Ground No. 2 (Disallowance of renovation of expenses of Rs. 3,14,052/-) 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed on verification on ledger of house building sales account that expenses towards repairing and renovation were shown only after the date of
I.T.A No. 326/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 3 Smt. Hiraben Pragjibhai Tala vs. ITO
sale of property. The property was sold on 16-08-2005 but the renovation expenses was made after August, 2005. The assessed explained that renovation was completed before sale of property but its payment was made after the sale of the property. The assessing officer has not accepted the reply of the assessee stating that assessee had maintained books of account as per mercantile system and the assessee failed to substantiate her claim with relevant supporting evidences.
On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and noticed that assessee has failed to substantiate with relevant evidences the claim of renovation expenses after the sale of property. The assessee also could not controvert the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that she has maintained books of account on mercantile basis. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the ground of appeal of the assesse and the same is dismissed.
Ground No. 3 (Addition of Rs. 8,55,000/- u/s. 68 of the act) 8. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed that assessee has credited an aggregate amount of Rs. 8,55,000/- on various dates. The assessee explained that she had advanced a sum of Rs. 8,55,000/- in contemplation of Satakhat to Shri Prafulbhai Ranchhodbhai Mataliva on account of sale of plot of land. It is further stated that Satakhat was subsequently cancelled by her own on 15th May, 2005 and 17th June, 2008 and received total consideration of Rs. 8,55,000/- which was credited in ledger of plot of land. The assessing officer has issued summon to Shri
I.T.A No. 326/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 4 Smt. Hiraben Pragjibhai Tala vs. ITO
Prafulbhai Ranchhodbhai Mataliva to verify genuineness of transaction but the said person has not made any compliance to the summon issued by the assessing officer. The assessing officer has also asked the assessee to produce the said person but no-one has attended before the assessing officer. The assessing officer has further noticed that said Satakhat were neither registered nor notarized and stamp paper was purchased by Shri S.M. Patel. Consequently, the assessing officer has made addition of Rs. 8,55,000/- u/s. 68 of the act. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Ground No. 4 (Addition of Rs. 10,66,331/- u/s. 68 of the act 9. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed that assessee has filed her revised return of income on 28th March, 2007. On verification of capital account enclosed with the revised return, the assessing officer noticed that assessee has shown opening capital at Rs. 17,84,936/- as against the closing balance of Rs. 7,18,605/- shown in the assessment year 2005-06. In this regard, the assessing officer observed that income can be revised only when there is mistake or omission in calculation of income, however, the assessee has altered his books of account and shown income out of undisclosed income in her revised capital account. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 10,66,331/- was made u/s. 68 of the act to the total income of the assessee. The assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Ground Nos. 5 & 6 ( Addition of Rs. 2,14,600/- u/s. 68 of the act) 10. The assessing officer noticed that assessee has accepted loan/deposit in aggregate of Rs. 2,14,600/- from Shri Arvindbhai Hansrajbhai Shingala,
I.T.A No. 326/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 5 Smt. Hiraben Pragjibhai Tala vs. ITO
Shri Hansrajbhai Punjabhai Shingala, Shri Jentibhai Hansrajbhai Shingala and shri Rameshbhai Hansrajbhai Shingala on various dates and the amount of such deposits were just below Rs. 20,000/-. The assessing officer was of the view that these cash credit were nothing but assessee’s own money brought in business as and when required and subsequently it can be brought back in the business at the time of necessity. Therefore, the assessing officer has made addition of Rs. 2,14,600/- u/s. 68 of the act and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Ground No. 7 (Addition of Rs. 4,38,803/- u/s. 68 of the act) 11. The assessing officer noticed that assessee had shown closing bank balance of Rs. 700/- in her balance sheet. However, on verification of the revised balance sheet filed with the revised return of income the assessing officer noticed that assessee had shown closing balance at Rs. 4,39,503/-. The assessing officer was of the view that assessee had filed return of income on the basis of alteration made in her books of accounts. Therefore, the assessing officer has made addition of Rs. 4,38,803/- u/s. 68 of the act. The assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the asssessee.
During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has filed additional evidences on 13th June, 2009 containing the following Sr. No. Description of documents Page No
I.T.A No. 326/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 6 Smt. Hiraben Pragjibhai Tala vs. ITO
1 Copies of Affidavit made by both parties i.e. Appellant & 1 to 7 Prafulbhai Mataviya , who were entered into Satakhat towards purchase of property - Survey No 140, Plot No 39/1 confirming the transaction of Satakhat made and then cancelled as well as advance given and returned back
2 Copies of Affidavit made by both parties i.e. Appellant & 8 to 13 Prafulbhai Mataviya , who were entered into Satakhat towards purchase of property - Survey No 140, Plot No 8 confirming the transaction of Satakhat made and then cancelled as well as advance given and returned back.
3 Copies of Affidavit made by both parties i.e. Appellant & 14 to 21 Arvind H. Singhala with three other parties , who were entered into Satakhat towards sale of property - Survey No 140, Plot No 39/1 confirming the transaction of Satakhat made and then cancelled as well as advance received and returned back to them.
it was contended that assessee could not file these evidences before lower authorities due to improper and inappropriate advice by earlier consultant. The ld. counsel has also filed paper book containing detail and document filed before the assessing officer and ld. CIT(A) during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings. It was also contended that assessing officer has made various disallowances u/s. 68 of the act on self analysis
I.T.A No. 326/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 7 Smt. Hiraben Pragjibhai Tala vs. ITO
basis without giving any show cause notice and obtaining any explanation of the assessee. Therefore, it was contended that necessary opportunity has not been provided to the assessee before making aforesaid additions u/s. 68 of the act. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative has supported the order of lower authorities.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has made four additions u/s. 68 of the act as referred above in this order. We have perused the finding of the assessing officer and ld. CIT(A) and it is noticed that most of the additions were made on the basis of self analysis made by the assessing officer that assessee has failed to substantiate her claim with supporting evidences and the assessee had filed revised return of income on alternation of her books of account etc. However, we have noticed that assessing officer has not referred any show cause notice issued to the assessee before making various additions u/s. 68 of the act. Therefore, we observed that assessee could not get proper opportunity to furnish her explanation and supporting material before the assessing officer. We have also noticed that assessee has filed additional evidences as reported above in this order which are relevant to the various additions made u/s. 68 of the act. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that it will be appropriate to restore the grounds of appeal 3 to 7 of the assessee to the file of assessing officer for deciding afresh after considering the additional evidences filed and providing adequate opportunities to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal no. 1 and 2 of the assessee are dismissed and remaining ground no. 3 to 7 are restored to the file of assessing officer as directed
I.T.A No. 326/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 8 Smt. Hiraben Pragjibhai Tala vs. ITO
above for fresh adjudication. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 are general which do not require any adjudication at this stage, therefore, the same stand dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13-09-2019
Sd Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 13/09/2019 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, Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot