DHAIRYA JYOTISH DANDWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President
And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member
Dhairya Jyotish
Dandwala, 101, Satvik
Appartment, Nandoli
Gam Road, Shilaj Lake,
Shilaj, Ahmedabad
PAN: AGGPD5272P
(Appellant)
Vs
The ITO,
Ward-5(2)(2),
Ahmedabad
(Respondent)
Assessee by: Shri Tej Shah, A.R.
Revenue by: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R.
Date of hearing
: 08-07-2025
Date of pronouncement
: 14-08-2025
आदेश/ORDER
Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 12-03-
2025
passed by CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2,
Chennai for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in making addition of Rs. 5,80,000/- u/s 69C of the act.
Total tax effect
Rs. 3,48,000/-”
The assessee filed return of income on 20th December, 2017 declaring income at Rs. 4,96,040/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee derived income from small Assessment Year 2017-18
I.T.A No. 813/Ahd/2025
Dhairya Jyotish Dandwala, A.Y. 2017-18
2
construction work and as advisor and director in real estate.
The assessee also received income as advisor for catering business. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason large cash payments made for credit card purchases. Statutory notices were issued and the same was replied by the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee made substantial payment for credit card purchase in cash amounting to Rs. 5,80,000/- through credit card during assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 5,80,000/- on 16-11-2009 in City Bank for assessee’s credit card payment. The notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to City bank calling for the credit card statement of the assessee, the same was submitted and after going through the same, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to discharge his onus regarding the payments made for the purpose of LIC payment by him for his father and mother. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 5,80,000/- u/s. 69C as unexplained expenditure.
The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has paid LIC premium of his parents through his credit card. For the said payment of premium, the assessee received Rs. 1,50,000/- on 03-11-2016 from his mother. The assessee also received Rs. 1,50,000/- on 31-10-2016, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 07-11-2016 and Rs. 1,80,000/- on 10-11-2016 from his father. Thus, the assessee after receiving the said cash from his parents paid the LIC premium amounting to Rs. 5,80,000/- on 16-11-2016. Therefore, assessee explained all the expenditure on the credit card to the Assessing Officer.
I.T.A No. 813/Ahd/2025
Dhairya Jyotish Dandwala, A.Y. 2017-18
3
The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee made payment of LIC premium of his father and mother for which he received cash from his parents and the assessee also explained the source of their payment. Therefore the credit card payment has been categorically explained by the assessee. These payments of LIC premium were not doubted by the Assessing Officer. Hence the CIT(A) was not right in making addition to the extent of Rs. 5,80,000/- u/s. 69C of the Act. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14-08-2025 (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble)
Vice President Judicial Member
Ahmedabad : Dated 14/08/2025
आदेश क त
ल प अे षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. Assessee
Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलय अधकरण, अहमदाबाद