Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Pramod Kumar]
SMC-ITA No. 288/Ahd/2015 Komil Yogeshbhai Gandhi Vs. ITO AY : 2011-12 Page 1 of 3
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [ Before Shri Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member ] ITA No. 288/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Komil Yogeshbhai Gandhi ......…………......Appellant At & Post : Sonasan, Tal : Prantij, Dist : Sabarkantha [PAN : AMAPG 1799 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......................Respondent SK Ward-2, Himatnagar
Appearances by: AC Shah, for the appellant Sonia Kumar, for the respondent
Date of concluding the hearing : 12.10.2018 Date of pronouncing the order : 15.10.2018
O R D E R 1. By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of learned CIT(A)’s order dated 19th December 2014 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12.
Grievances of the appellant are as follows:-
“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the cash credit of Rs.5,00,00/- in the name of Shri Laxmichand A. Gandhi on the ground that the creditworthiness is not proved inasmuch as the assessee has furnished the evidences regarding the creditworthiness with PAN.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence in respect of cash credit of Rs.5,00,000 in the name of Laxmichand A Gandhi inasmuch as CIT(A) should have called for the remand report or he should have accepted the evidence submitted as genuine.”
The relevant material facts are like this. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown an unsecured loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from one Laxmichand A. Gandhi but then this person apparently did not have any means to give Rs.5,00,000/- to the assessee since there was a deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- shortly before the issuance of this cheque on 06.12.2010. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before
SMC-ITA No. 288/Ahd/2015 Komil Yogeshbhai Gandhi Vs. ITO AY : 2011-12 Page 2 of 3
the CIT(A) but without any success. Learned CIT(A) noted that the explanation about source of this deposit as out of sale of property was rejected on the ground that “on examination of details given shows that the sale deed does not show any details of advances paid by the buyers of the land to Shri Gandhi” and that “the deed records that the sale consideration has been paid on the date of transfer and it does not mention any advance has been given”. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before me.
I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position.
I find that there is no dispute that Shri L.A. Gandhi sold his property for Rs.8,40,000/- which was concluded, by registration of sale deed, on 25th March 2011. The explanation of Shri Gandhi is that it was out of advance for this property transaction that deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- was made. It is a normal practice that entire sale consideration is not received on the date of registration itself but partly in advance. The explanation of the lender cannot, therefore, be rejected as improbable. In any case, it is not the averment in the sale deed that entire consideration was paid on 25.03.2011 itself. Keeping all these factors in mind, I am inclined not to doubt means of the lender in depositing Rs.5,00,000/- on 06.12.2010.
Keeping all these discussions in mind, and bearing in mind entirety of the case, I uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition of Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained credit.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 15th day of October, 2018.
Sd/-
Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the 15th day of October, 2018 **bt Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order