Yaminiben Sandkumar Bhatt Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad assessee has duly submitted bank’s certificate disclaiming the existence of such bank accounts belonging to the assessee. Hence, addition of cash deposited on such non-existing bank account unsustainable
Facts-
The assessees pointed out before us that the assessees are related as spouses and the issue involved is inter-linked and co-related addition being made in both the cases on account of cash found deposited in their joint bank accounts.
The assessee stated that primary pleadings and arguments against the additions made was that it tantamounted to duplicate addition since cash deposited related to only one bank account ,each in HDFC Bank and Dena Bank, jointly held in the names of both the assesseess, while the Revenue had held that there was separate bank accounts in relation to which addition of cash found deposited had been made in the hands of both the assessee.
CIT(A) noted that the bank accounts in two cases were different and accordingly upheld the additions made in the case of both assesses. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion-
The assessee has placed before us certificates issued by both the banks disclaiming the existence of Bank accounts which the Revenue had alleged belonged to the assesses. The assessee has all along claimed that it had only one set of joint bank accounts in both the banks and had placed copies of the same before CIT(A), given details of its bank account numbers and also the details of cash deposited therein.
We have also noted from the submissions of the assessees before the Ld.CIT(A), reproduced in his order, that they had offered to submit any further evidences which was required to prove his case. But the CIT(A) simply dismissed this contention of the assessee stating that copies of the other alleged bank accounts had been obtained from the banks by the Revenue u/s 133(6) of the Act. The assessee was neither provided copy of these bank accounts nor given any further opportunity to prove that these Bank accounts never belonged to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
Present appeals have been filed by the assessees against separate orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) of even dated 22.03.2021 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2011-12.
2. The ld.counsel for the assessees pointed out before us that the assessees are related as spouses and the issue involved is inter-linked and co-related addition being made in both the cases on account of cash found deposited in their joint bank accounts. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that primary pleadings and arguments against the additions made was that it tantamounted to duplicate addition since cash deposited related to only one bank account ,each in HDFC Bank and Dena Bank, jointly held in the names of both the assesseess, while the Revenue had held that there was separate bank accounts in relation to which addition of cash found deposited had been made in the hands of both the assessee. The ld.counsel for the assessee, therefore, contended that since his arguments would be common in both the assesses appeals therefore both appeals needed to be heard together. Ld.DR had no objection to the same.
3. Counsel for the assessee thereafter began with drawing our attention to the facts of the case. He pointed out that in the case of both the assessees reassessment proceedings, u/s 147 of the Act, for the impugned year were initiated after almost a gap of six years, on 30.3.2018, for the reason that cash was found deposited in the bank accounts which were in the joint names of both the assessees. In the case of the assessee, Mrs.Yaminiben Sanatkumar Bhatt ,cash to the tune of Rs.31 lakhs was allegedly found deposited ,while in the case of her husband the other assessee before us, Sh.Sanantkumar Hariprasad Bhatt , cash to the tune of Rs.26.90 lakhs was found deposited, in both cases in the HDFC and Dena Bank joint account of the assessees.
The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that the primary assertion of the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) was that there was only one joint bank account of both the assessees each in Dena Bank and HDFC bank, wherein total cash deposit during the year were to the tune of Rs.26.90 lakhs, and therefore, the additions of the said amount of cash deposits in any case could have been made only in the hands of one of the assessees and not both. He pointed out that details of the correct bank accounts was also submitted to the ld.CIT(A) along with the details of cash deposited therein, which he pointed out was reproduced at page no.3 of the ld.CIT(A) as under:
