DILIPBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

In the facts and circumstances of the case, action of reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act is not justified.

The Ld.CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in partly confirming addition/s.69A of the Act to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- out of total - 2– addition of Rs.29,00,000/- made by Ld.AO on account of capital introduced by the assessee in a partnership firm.

The Ld.CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in not appreciating that section 69A of the Act could not have been invoked in the facts of the present case.

Both, AO & CIT(A) have erred in passing the impugned orders without properly appreciating facts of the case, submission of the assessee and documentary evidences available on record in the correct perspective. Such as act is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer framed an ex parte assessment and made an addition of Rs.29,00,000 under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of capital introduced by the assessee in the partnership firm, Shreeji Buildtech, treating the same as unexplained. During the appellate proceedings, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld. CIT(A)”], after considering the submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee as well as the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer, partly allowed the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs.15,00,000 out of the total addition of Rs.29,00,000 and deleted the balance addition of Rs.14,00,000. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of sustaining the addition of Rs.15,00,000, the assessee is now in appeal before us.

Heard the argument of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

During the year the assessee received Rs.29,00,000/- from various persons and having received, introduced as capital. The persons are Shri Manoj R Patel, Shri Girsihbhai T Patel, Shiv Transport Prop. Nikita D Patel, Shri Vijay J Patel & Shri Suresh T Patel. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the loans received from & Shri Suresh T Patel and confirmed the loans received from Shri Girsihbhai T Patel, Shiv Transport Prop. Nikita D Patel & Shri Vijay J Patel (HUF). The loan received on 25.05.2019 from Shri Vijay J Patel (HUF) of stands repaid on 19.10.2019 i.e within a period of five months. Hence, we hold that no addition is warranted. With regard to the loan received from Nikita D Patel, it is found that she is the proprietor of Shiv transport and amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been received from the transport company and the evidences thereof have been furnished. Hence, we hold that no addition on this account is called for. Shri Girsihbhai T Patel has extended loan of Rs.11,00,000/- the record before shows that the entire details of monies have been given along with the source, confirmation bank statements. Since the details on record have been ignored by the Ld.CIT(A), it is hereby held that no addition on this account is called for.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

""थ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.