Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ramit Kochar
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 19/11/2012 of the ld. First Appellate Authority,
Mumbai. The assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal.
The first and second ground pertains to treating the evidence submitted under Rule-46A of the Income Tax
Rules, 1962 and consequent addition of ` 2 lakhs made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).
During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Vimal Punmiya, invited our attention to the agreement, (page-9 of the paper book) by claiming that the impugned amount was shown in earlier year and it was repaid, therefore, the Assessing Officer may be directed to examine the genuineness of the claim of the assessee. On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, ld. DR, though defended the addition but did not oppose if the matter may be examined afresh.
2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that at pages 9 to 22 of the paper book, there is a deed of assignment made on 05/08/2002 between Bhupatrai Ranchhoddas Gandhi along with heirs/executors and administrator and Naresh Maganlal Shah/Kiran Maganlal Shah. The Ld. Assessing Officer made disallowance of `2,80,000/- by treating the same as cash credit and consequent addition u/s 68 of the Act by opining that no PAN were provided of the loan creditors. The assessee is claiming that she is in a position to substantiate its claim.
Considering the totality of facts and the circumstances narrated before us, the assessee is directed to produce the necessary evidence before the Ld. Assessing Officer, which will be examined by him to his satisfaction, thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The next ground pertains to confirming the addition of `4,65,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. It was claimed that the amount was paid through cheque. The assessee has also claimed violation of Rule- 46A of the rules.
3.1. We have considered the arguments of both sides and found that while making the addition, the Ld. Assessing Officer observed that, as per the agreement dated 05/08/2002, the assessee along with Shri Naresh Maganlal Shah, acquired a shop at Dadar for a consideration of `21 lakh. The assessee is owner of 1/2 part of the shop, which is appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31/03/2005 and investment of the assessee to the tune of `11,55,000/-. As per the Revenue, the assessee had shown the investment of `6,90,000/-, therefore, the difference was to be reconciled. Considering the totality of facts and the claim of the assessee that the amount was paid through banking channel, the assessee is directed to produce the necessary evidence for such claim before the Ld. Assessing Officer. The Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the factual matrix and decide in accordance with law. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The last ground pertains to ad-hoc addition of `25,000/-. This ground was not pressed by the ld. counsel, therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed.
Finally, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 19/09/2017