KISHORBHAI DHIRAJLAL CHAMPANERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short “Ld.
CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 08.08.2024 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. Both the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition made of Rs.
28,43,620 towards both cheque deposit and cash deposited in bank account under S.68 without appreciating that the appellant main source of income is from commission and maintaining regular books of accounts and cash were deposited out of the cash on hand in bank out of old saving is without any justification and beyond juri iction liable to be deleted or may be sent back to the CIT(A) or Juri ictional officer to decide matter on fresh in the interest of justice.
That your appellant reserve right to amend / alter / modify any ground or grounds during the pendency of the appeal.”
The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee along with two Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2–
other parties had purchased immovable property for a consideration of ₹8
lakhs on 20-03-2012. As per the sale deed, the assessee’s share in the stamp duty was ₹14,812/-, but the assessee was unable to provide source of funds for payment of such stamp duty. Accordingly, the assessing officer added a sum of ₹14,812/- as unexplained income of the assessee since the assessee could not explain the source of payment of such stamp duty. Secondly, the Assessing Officer observed that there are cash deposits of ₹28,28,808/- in the bank accounts held by the assessee. Since the assessee could not explain the source of such deposit in his bank account, the Assessing Officer also made an addition of ₹28,28,808/- to the income of the assessee.
In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Before us, the assessee filed an Affidavit stating that he is from a small village in Dholera and ran a retail cloth store under the name "Kishorekumar Dhirajlal" in Dholera up until 2013. The assessee moved to Ahmedabad in 2012 and started working as a broker for the sale and purchase of Dholera lands. In 2012, the assessee along-with his sons purchased a residential property at Ghuma, Ahmedabad, for a sum of Rs. 34.5 lakhs, with each family member contributing to the purchase, as per the registered deed. In 2014, the assessee along-with his sons, also bought a joint shop at Kalash Residency in Ghuma, Bopal, for a sum of Rs. 8 Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3–
members and friends, including his sons, daughter, and a relative and all transactions are reflected in his cash book. After receiving a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee appointed Mr. Arvind K.
Thakkar, an advocate and tax consultant, to handle the matter. However, after filing the return, Mr. Thakkar did not submit various required documents, leading to an assessment order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147. Mr. Thakkar then advised filing an appeal, and an appeal was filed with CIT(A), challenging the reopening of the notice as time-barred. When the CIT(A), passed its order on August 8, 2024, the assessee again approached
Asst.Year –2012-13
- 4–
such withdrawals were also given by the assessing officer, while making the additions in hands of the assessee. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid circumstances, the counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of assessing officer for de novo consideration.
In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the assessing officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going to the facts of the instant case as mentioned in the preceding part of our order, we are of the considered view that the assessee has been able to give a reasonable cause for not causing appearance before the assessing officer and not being able to produce the necessary documents in support of the source of cash deposits appearing in his bank account. Accordingly, in interest of justice the matter is restored to the file of assessing officer for de novo consideration, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/02/2025 (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 27/02/2025
TANMAY, Sr. PSITA No. 1752/Ahd/2024
Asst.Year –2012-13
- 5–
आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)-
5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.