Vijyakumar R.Naik, Ahmedabad vs Assessee

1

ITA.No. 2019/Ahd/2011 Assessment year 2007-2008

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD "B " BENCH, AHMEDABAD

(BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER.)

ITA No. 2019/Ahd/2011 (Assessment Year: 2007-2008 )

Shr Vijaykumar R.Naik, Prop. Ani Agencies, SF-3 Akar Complex, Navjivan Stadium Road, AHMEDABAD. ................Appellant

[PAN: AAQPN 6050P ]

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), AHMEDABAD. .................Respondent

Appellant by : Shri Dhiren Shah.

Respondent by: Shri Roopchand, Sr.D.R.

Date of hearing : 27-04-2015

Date of pronouncement : 13-5-2015

O R D E R

Per Shri N.S. Saini, Accountant Member.

2 ITA.No. 2019/Ahd/2011 Assessment year 2007-2008

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Ahmedabad dated 8-6-2011.

2. The sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee in this appeal is that the CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,35,100/- u/s. 68 of the Act and directing the A.O. to examine the utilisation of money withdrawn by cheque to the extent of Rs.4,35,650/-.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the A.O. observed that from AIR information, it was found that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.20,72,200/- in his Savings bank account with HSBC Ahmedabad Branch on various dates. In reply to the show cause issued by the A.O. the assessee submitted that the assessee has sold gold and produced purchase bills of gold on the sale of which the assessee had received cash which was deposited in the bank account. The assessee also furnished ledger account of sale of old gold of Rs.4,01,450/- and confirmation from 8 persons for receipt of gold against cash.

4. The Assessing Officer observed that the explanation of the assessee is that the amount of Rs.20,72,200/- was deposited from cash received on sale of gold as per the ledger account of the assessee gold sold during the year is only of Rs.4,01,450/-. Hence he allowed the credit for the same and made addition for the balance of Rs.16,70,750/-.

5. On appeal, CIT (A) held as under:-

"2.3. I have considered the facts of the case assessment order and appellant's submission. It is not in dispute that appellant did not disclose his personal bank account to the Department. Only after receipt of AIR information with regard to cash deposit in this account, assessing officer asked for the source of cash deposits. Appellant agreed that this bank account is not included in audit since no business receipts are deposited in this account. Appellant submitted that source 3 ITA.No. 2019/Ahd/2011 Assessment year 2007-2008

of such cash deposits as sale of gold ornaments, receipt of cash loans, money received on inheritance and deposit of cash withdrawn from the bank through ATM or cheque. As regards sale of gold ornaments, assessing officer examined the parties and on the basis of detailed examination, allowed part relief. For remaining part, appellant could not establish the source of purchase as well as sale. Accordingly the disallowance made by the Assessing officer on account of sale of gold ornament is confirmed.

As regards appellant's claim of receipt of cash loans from various parties, the same is found to be without any basis. The identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions were not proved. Further the amount received is not entered in books of accounts therefore the explanation of the appellant in this regard is not acceptable. Accordingly the addition on account of cash deposit for which source is claimed to be borrowings is confirmed.

As regards appellant's claim of source byway of inheritance, appellant could not prove this claim with contemporary documentary evidence. Signing of confirmation by oneself cannot be treated as evidence to prove this. Source of cash deposit to this extent is also found to be unexplained hence addition to this extent is also confirmed.

As regards appellant's claim of re-depositing cash withdrawn from ATM or through cheques, this aspect has not been examined or looked at by the Assessing Officer. The withdrawal from ATM is for immediate purposes and of small amounts therefore it cannot be presumed that the same money is re-deposited later. Accordingly the appellant's claim of depositing ATM withdrawals is rejected and addition made by the A.O. to this extent is confirmed.

4 ITA.No. 2019/Ahd/2011 Assessment year 2007-2008

However cash withdrawn by cheque may have possibility of redeposit in the bank The entries in the cash book prepared subsequently by the appellant cannot be used as valid basis since it is not prepared contemporary and do not have evidentiary value. As per appellant's submission money withdrawn by cheques is Rs.4,35,650/-. If this money is not utilised in making investments or expenditure, the same can be utilised in re-depositing in the bank. To this extent, source of cash deposit can be considered as explained. Assessing Officer is therefore directed to examine if this money is utilised in making investments or expenditure. If the same is not utilised then addition to this extent will be reduced."

6. The Authorised Representative submitted before us that the CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.16,70,750/- and he directed to verify the cheque withdrawal of Rs.4,35,650/- before deleing the same by the Assessing Officer.

7. We find that the A.R. of the assessee could not point out any specific error in the order of the CIT (A). The assessee neither filed any copy of the relevant bank statement nor produced any document relating to alleged loan. We therefore, do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the C.I.T.(A) which is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on Wednesday the 13 th May,2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(KUL BHARAT) (N. S. SAINI) Judicial Member Accountant Member 5

ITA.No. 2019/Ahd/2011 Assessment year 2007-2008

Ahmedabad, the 13th day of May, 2015

Patki. Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order etc

Assistant/Deputy Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

Patki

1. Date of dictation .11 & 12-05-15. (dictation-pad pages attached at the end of this File)

2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member . 12-5-15

3. Other Member 12-5-15

4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 12-5-15

5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement 13-5-2015

6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 13-5-2015

7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 14-5-2015

8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk..........................................

9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..........................

10 Date of Despatch of the Order..................