9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside by holding that the deposits were made in the bank accounts during the AY 2005-06 and therefore addition cannot be made during the year under appeal for unexplained investment - in the case of Smt. Geetaben N. Kapadia, the Authorized Representative of the assessee has made absolutely no submissions for the additions made in the following bank account No. 0041-093100-001, thus, the order of the CIT(A) in respect of the addition of ₹ 2,02,067/- is upheld – Decided in favour of assessee, Shri Amit N. Kapadia and partly in favour of other assessee. - ITA(SS) No. 151/Ahd/2011, ITA(SS) No. 159/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2014 - SHRI G.C. GUPTA AND SHRI N.S. SAINI JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. Vimalendra Verma, DR For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under: 4.2 I have considered the facts and the submissions. In respect of gift received, from the copy of Income-tax return filed, it is seen that the donors have very low income and also copy of the bank account was not filed from which the loan was given. Hence, the creditworthiness is not proved. For unreconciled sales as the appellant has not given any details, the Assessing Officer is justified in making the additions. In respect of loans, I find that the appellant has not proved the genuineness of the transaction and also not proved the identity and the creditworthiness of the depositors. Although the appellant's submissions that it was loan and not the gift, is correct but he has hot proved the creditworthiness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,53,587 0041-097680-020 2005-06 5,01,000 Total 22,57,654 which is not recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee. Therefore, he added the same u/s. 69 of the Act as gifs received by the assessee. 6. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: 4.2 I have considered the facts and the submissions. For unreconciled sales and past savings, as the appellant has not given any details, hence, the Assessing Officer is justified in making the additions. In respect of loans, I find that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee in the present year of assessment. For this, he placed reliance on the decision of this bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Premilaben A. Jariwala Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 155/Ahd/2011 order dated 04.04.2014, wherein similar disallowance was deleted. 8. The Departmental Representative could not controvert the above submissions of the Authorized Representative of the assessee. 9. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, we find that in the case of Shri Amit N. Kapadia, the Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed out from Page No. 26 of the paper book wherein bank statement of Centurion Bank Ltd., Surat for account no. 0041097695020 is placed, that the sum of ₹ 5 lakhs was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 lakhs on 24.08.2004 and there was cash deposit of ₹ 1,000/- on 16.08.2004, totalling to ₹ 10,01,000/-. Further, at page no. 32 of paper book is placed bank statement of Centurion Bank Ltd., Surat for account no. 0041097708051 wherefrom it will be found that ₹ 5,51,000/- was credited on 18.08.2004 and ₹ 1,000/- was cash deposit made on 16.08.2004 and there was credit of interest of ₹ 1,587/- on 04.10.2004, totalling to ₹ 5,53,587/-. Further, at page no. 38 of the paper book is placed the bank statement of Centurion Bank Ltd., Surat for account no. 0041097680020 from which it will be observed that ₹ 1,000/- was the cash deposit made on 07.08.2004 and there was a deposit of ₹ 5 lakhs on 12.08. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these deposits for assessment year 2005-06 as per law. This ground of the assessee is allowed. 12. Respectfully following the above quoted decision of the Tribunal, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition of ₹ 15,73,515/- in the case of Shri Amit N. Kapadia and ₹ 20,55,587/- in the case of Smt. Geetaben N. Kapadia by holding that the deposits were made in the said bank accounts during the Assessment Year 2005-06 and therefore addition cannot be made during the year under appeal for unexplained investment. However, the Assessing Officer will be at liberty to take cognizance of these deposits in the Assessment Year 2005-06 as per law. Further, we observe that in the case of Smt. Geetaben N. Kapadi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
