Case Law Details
Rupa Mahesh Gandhi Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
As transpires from the orders of the authorities below, the addition to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment in Bombay Stock Exchange of Rs.25,21,525/- and unexplained source of payment of credit card amounting to Rs.3,45,000/- was made in the absence of any details submitted by the assessee before the authorities. However, before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated that due details were filed with regard to both the issues. As noted above, the assessee had filed submissions explaining that no investment had been made in scripts but on the contrary the assessee had traded in scripts and incurred losses during the year; ledger account of the broker reflecting the said fact as also detailed scripwise withdrawal was also filed. Similarly, with respect to expense incurred on credit card payment, the assessee had denied making any such payment. Therefore, clearly, the orders passed by the authorities below had ignored the submissions of the assessee. In the interest of justice, therefore, the issue needs reconsideration and, therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and considering all the contentions and explanation in this regard.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)” for short] dated 24.10.2019 passed under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.
2. The brief background of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened for scrutiny for the reason that the AO had information that she had invested in Bombay Stock Exchange amounting to Rs.25,21,525/- and made credit card payment of Rs.3,45,000/- in her bank account with City Bank Ltd. in the impugned year under consideration. The assessee was served with a notice under Section 148 of the Act; in response to which she filed return of income of Rs.2,54,067/-. Thereafter, in response to the notices issued to her to explain the source of investment in Bombay Stock Exchange and the source of payment of credit card, the assessee filed due reply submitting that she had nothing to do with the same and it was her husband who was looking into the entire matter and an affidavit of her husband was also filed in this regard. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, noting that no details explaining the source of investment had been submitted by the assessee, made addition of the investment of the assessee in Bombay Stock Exchange and the credit card payment treating the same as unexplained investment and expenses of the assessee, resulting in an addition of Rs.28,66,525/- (investment in BSE Rs.25,21,525/- + credit card payment Rs.3,45,000/-) to the income of the assessee.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
