THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAJESHKUMAR KANJIBHAI PATEL,, VISNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 513/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 June 2024AY 2017-186 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. Regarding the cash credit addition of Rs. 1,15,00,000/-, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the appellate order in the case of M/s. Swastik Pipe Industries for AY 2017-18. It was held that the transactions pertained to expected donations for a cremation site managed by Antim Visamo Trust, which had provided extracts from its books and issued receipts. The primary onus under Sections 132(4)/292C was discharged, and the Trust owned up the amounts. For the jewellery addition of Rs. 10,78,050/-, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that it belonged to the late Smt. Manguben K. Patel, and the assessee, as the legal heir, offered it to tax. The will and family tree supported the claim of inheritance. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions, as the assessee had satisfactorily explained the sources of cash and jewellery, and the Revenue provided no contrary evidence.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, who had deleted additions made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, Shri Rajeshkumar K. Patel, was covered under Section 153A proceedings following search and survey actions in a related group. The AO added Rs. 1,15,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit, treating it as income from undisclosed sources, based on documents extracted from the mobile phone of the assessee's son, pertaining to M/s. Swastik Pipe Industries. Additionally, Rs. 10,78,050/- was added on account of unexplained jewellery found from the assessee's residence and lockers, identified as belonging to the assessee's late mother.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued that digital data clearly indicated unaccounted transactions and the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the incriminating nature of the seized material. The Assessee contended that the AO made additions based on assumptions without considering documentary evidence, and the transactions related to expected donations for a Shamshan Ghat. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,78,050/- being unexplained jewellery. The Revenue's grounds of appeal also included a general prayer to uphold the AO's order. The Assessee relied on the CIT(A)'s order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 132(4),Section 292C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Hearing: 11/06/2024Pronounced: 14/06/2024

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)-12, Ahmedabad 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध , आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad

1.

Date of dictation (word processed by Hon’ble AM in his laptop) : 12.6.2024 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the : 12.6.2024 Dictating Member. 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 : 14.6.24 Sr.P.S./P.S. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 14.6.24 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 :

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →