Amee Mahasukhlal Parekh As Lr of Late Mahasukhlal Navnidhlal Parekh Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act not sustained as there is no unexplained amount in the bank statement and hence ingredients of section 68 not attracted.
Facts- The petitioner is a legal heir of late Mahasukhlal Navnidhlal Parekh who filed the original return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 31.08.2015. Late Mahasukhlal Navnidhlal Parekh expired on 30.09.2019.
The notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued under the old regime for reassessment for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 16.06.2021.
The respondent passed the impugned order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act on 29.07.2022 as well as the notice dated 30.07.2022 u/s. 148 of the Act in the name of the petitioner on the ground that there is an escapement of Rs.3,25,00,000/- as the late father of the petitioner advanced loan during the year and source of which has remained unexplained and therefore there is escapement of income to that extent for the year under consideration.
Conclusion- Held that there is no escapement of income since the amount was received by the late father of the petitioner on 04.09.2014 from Mr. Hardik Parekh and was paid by NEFT to Ms. Darshana Doshi on the same day. Similarly, the amount was received back on 19.09.2015 from Ms. Darshana Doshi and returned to Mr. Hardik Parekh. In such circumstances, there is no escapement of income of the late father of the petitioner is concerned. The reason given by the Assessing Officer for alleged escapement of Rs.3,25,00,000/- is therefore not sustainable since there is no unexplained amount in the bank statement on record since the assessee did not retain the amount of Rs.3,25,00,000/- and as such the ingredients of Section 68 are not attracted.
