Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Zubeda Ibrahimbhai Balotravala Vs. ITO, 386, Mota Bamba, Kazi’s Dhaba, Ward-1(3)(5), Astodia, Ahmedabad-380001 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AKZPB7774P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S. N. Divatia, Adv. Revenue by : Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 16.03.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 28.12.2017 passed by the ITO, Ward-1(3)(5), Ahmedabad under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2010-11.
We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record.
Zubeda Ibrahimbhai Balotravala vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 2 - 3. The assessee has made share transaction but not filed return of income for the year under consideration. The notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2017 was issued followed by notice under Section 142(1) r.w.s. 129 due to change of incumbent was issued on 07.07.2017 and served upon the assessee but without any result. A letter dated 16.08.2017 for filing of return was issued followed by show-cause dated 09.11.2017 proposing addition and finalizing the assessment under Section 144 of the Act was served upon the assessee by the Inspector. However, it appears that none appeared on behalf of the assessee, neither any written submission was filed on her behalf. Finally the assessment was completed by making addition of Rs. 10 lacs in the absence of explanation in regard to the investment of the said amount made by the assessee by cheques issued from her Bank Account No. 2075 to Angel Capital & Debt Market Ltd. (Angel Broking Ltd.). The Ld. CIT(A) in appeal restricted the addition to 7 lacs. Hence, the instant appeal before us.
Before the First Appellate Authority the husband of the appellant appeared and candidly submitted that the assessee does not have any document to explain the source of investment in share trading neither the details of the bank account lying in Textile Processors Cooperative Bank from which cheques were issued since the bank has been liquidated. Further that, it was submitted by the husband of the assessee that their son had stolen Gold ornaments of the assessee and deposited the proceeds in the above bank account from where the cheques for share trading were issued to Angel Broking Ltd.
Zubeda Ibrahimbhai Balotravala vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 3 - 5. Apart from that he has submitted a challan from one person Sipai Mahebubbhai wherefrom it appears that an amount of Rs. 4 lacs were paid to the appellant in lieu of Gold jewellery in the year 2011. The voter identity card of that person was also submitted before the Revenue.
Upon hearing the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee and the Revenue upon perusal of the records particularly the order passed by the authorities below we do not hesitate to opine that there is some dispute in the family matters particularly the son and the parents including the appellant before us. The conduct of the son of the assessee as narrated by his father cannot be brushed aside in the facts and circumstances of the case. Though the receipt of sale proceeds of Gold to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs is admittedly pertains to 2011 and not relevant for the year under consideration it may happen that the relevant receipt for the year under consideration was not in the possession of the assessee to submit the same before the Revenue authorities in support of her deposit. It is also equally possible that a married woman can manage the impugned amount out of the sale of Gold jewellery and past savings which could have been deposited in the bank for share trading business. Furthermore, the assessee was unable to produce bank document due to liquidation of the Textile Processors Cooperative Bank from which account the cheques were issued which facts also required consideration.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case we need to stick a balance between the family problem, the inability of the assessee in justifying the deposit. Taking into consideration the smallness of amount
Zubeda Ibrahimbhai Balotravala vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 4 - of deposit in the bank that too by a married women facing family difficulties in and out we find it justified to delete the entire amount considering the bona fide of the appellant before us. Under these circumstances the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed.