Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar
आदेश/ORDER
PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot, as against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2009- 10.
2 I.T.A No. 249/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No Shri Ismail Nurmamad Sipai vs. ITO
The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and employed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. For the Assessment Year, 2009-10, the assessee has not filed his Return of Income. The Department was in possession of information that the assessee has deposited Rs. 14,81,000/- by way of cash in his ICICI Bank account during the financial year 2008-09. Therefore the case was reopened by issuing a notice u/s. 148 dated 17/03/2016. In response the assessee filed the Return of Income on 08/07/2016 declaring total income of Rs. 4,46,970/-. During the scrutiny assessment, the assessee explained that he borrowed money from friends and relatives for the medical treatment of his brother and nephew. Due to medical emergency reasons, the cash drawn were being re-deposited in the ICICI Bank account. However, the above explanation was not accepted by the assessing officer and therefore the entire cash deposited is treated as unexplained cash deposit and added to the income of the assessee.
Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal namely the loans received from 13 persons which is below Rs. 20,000/-. However confirmed the additions of gift received from the wife of Rs. 1,75,000/- and Rs. 3,87,700/- being the past savings of the assessee as not genuine. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,62,700/- as unexplained income.
3 I.T.A No. 249/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No Shri Ismail Nurmamad Sipai vs. ITO
Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the solitary ground: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-2, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming addition of Rs. 5,62,700/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deposits made in ICICI Bank.
4.1. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us that the assessee was a Government Servant and served from 1991 to 2009 and he had savings of Rs. 8,87,000/- which was deposited in the bank account. However the Ld. CIT(A) has estimated the past reasonable savings of the assessee as only Rs. 5,00,000/- and disallowed the remaining Rs. 3,87,700/-. The Ld. CIT(A) also failed to consider that there was an opening cash balance of Rs. 7,20,000/- as on 01/04/2008 and assessee filed its Return of Income for A.Y. 2009- 10 showing an income of Rs. 5,46,971/-. The assessee being a Government Servant worked for 18 years, Ld. CIT(A) has estimated the past savings only as Rs. 5,00,000/- and disallowed balance Rs. 3,87,700/- without any basis. Similarly, the gift from the assessee’s wife of Rs. 1,75,000/- was also held to be not genuine without any materials and simply added as the income of the assessee. Considering the medical emergencies faced by the assessee for treating his family members, the above addition is required to be deleted.
Per contra, the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Lower Authorities and pleaded that it does not require any interference and additions made is being sustained and assessee’s appeal be dismissed.
4 I.T.A No. 249/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No Shri Ismail Nurmamad Sipai vs. ITO
We have given our thought consideration and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) had estimated Rs. 5,00,000/- as the past savings of the assessee and disallowed balance Rs. 3,87,000/-. While making such an estimation, the Ld. CIT(A) has not shown on what basis such the disallowance were being made. The assessee had shown an opening cash balance of Rs. 7,20,000/- as on 01/04/2008. Therefore the estimation made by the Assessing Officer is not supported with any valid material therefore the disallowance is not justified. Similarly, the gift of Rs. 1,75,000/- received by the assessee from his wife is also disallowed without assigning any reasons thereon. Such a disallowance is not justifiable in law. Therefore we hereby delete both the disallowance of Rs. 3,87,700/- and Rs. 1,75,000/- and allow the assessee’s appeal.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23-11-2022
Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 23/11/2022 TRUE COPY आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
5 I.T.A No. 249/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No Shri Ismail Nurmamad Sipai vs. ITO
Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजकोट
Strengthened preparation & delivery of orders in the ITAT 1) Date of dictation 17/11/2022 2) Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating /11/2022 Member & Other Member 3) Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. /11/2022 4) Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating /11/2022 Member for pronouncement 5) Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 23/11/2022 6) Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 23/11/2022 7) Date on which the file goes the Head Clerk 8) Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9) Date of Dispatch of the order