ANURAG DHAIYA,NEW DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, , NEW DELHI

ITA 2543/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Anurag Dahiya against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had upheld the addition of Rs. 21,57,000 to his income for the assessment year 2011-12. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained cash deposits in Dahiya's bank account. Dahiya contended that these deposits were reimbursements from his employer, M/s. Diamond Foot Care Udyog Pvt. Ltd., for transportation expenses. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented, including confirmations from the employer and found that the deposits were indeed reimbursements for business-related expenses, thus meriting the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312708 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MONIKA GHAI; SHARAD AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.2543/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2011-12) ITA No.2543/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2011-12) Anurag Dahiya, RZ-20, Y-Block, New Roshan Pura, Main Paprawat Road, Najafgarh, South West Delhi 110043 PAN: APEPD-4486-Q ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Gurgaon, Haryana 122016 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Ms. Monika Ghai & Shri Sharad Aggarwal, Advocates ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 04/02/2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 29/04/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 31.03.2024, for assessment year 2011-12. 2. Ms. Monika Ghai, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee was working as manager with M/s. Diamond Foot Care Udyog Pvt. Ltd. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal there were cash deposits aggregating to Rs.21,57,000/- in bank account of the assessee over the period of 12 months. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer (AO) that the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee are in fact reimbursement of 2 ITA No.2543/Del/2024 (AY 2011-12) actual expenses towards transportation expenses for vehicle used for the business purposes of the company viz. fuel, traffic challan, etc. The assessee also furnished confirmation from the company to substantiate his contentions. However, the AO disbelieved the submissions of the assessee and made addition of Rs.21,57,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee filed additional evidences before the CIT(A) in the form of ledger accounts of the company Diamond Products Ltd. for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 and also furnished an affidavit of Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Director of M/s. Diamond Foot Care Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Diamond Products Ltd. The CIT(A) refused to accept additional evidences filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal in toto. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the company in response to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act issued by AO had again confirmed vide reply dated 30.1.2018 that the assessee was working as Manager (Admn.) in M/s. Diamond Foot Care Udyog Pvt. Ltd. from 01.08.2008 to 02.07.2013. He was responsible for managing the vehicle used in the business of the company. The company paid Rs.21,49,808/- to Anurag Dhaiya (assessee) to meet vehicle running and maintenance expenditure, etc. The ld. Counsel submitted that in light of evidences and confirmations placed on record, the addition of Rs.21,57,000/- may be deleted. 3. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department reiterating findings of the AO and the CIT(A) prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee and upholding impugned order. 4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record by the assessee examined. The assessee was working as Manager (Admn.) 3 ITA No.2543/Del/2024 (AY 2011-12) with M/s. Diamond Foot Care Udyog Pvt. Ltd. during the period relevant to AY 2011-12. There were cash deposits to the tune of Rs.22,82,000/- during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal in bank account of the assessee. The cash deposits were spread out during the entire Financial Year. The contention of the assessee is that the cash deposits are actual reimbursement made by company towards maintenance and running of transport vehicles for the business. In support of his contention the assessee has placed on record ledger account of the company as well as confirmations from the said company. The confirmation from assessee’s employer company is at page no. 21 of the paper book. The same is reproduced herein below:- 5. During assessment proceedings the AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to M/s. Diamond Foot Care Udyog Pvt. Ltd. In response to the said notice, the said 4 ITA No.2543/Del/2024 (AY 2011-12) company has inter alia confirmed that Anurag Dahiya was working as Manager (Admin.) with the company from 01.08.2008 to 20.07.2013. During Financial Year 2010-11, apart from monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, he was paid Rs.21,49,608/- on account of vehicle running and maintenance expenditure. The assessee has also placed on record another confirmation from Eternity Footwear Ltd. dated 22.02.2019, a group entity of Diamond Foot Care Udyog Pvt. Ltd. wherein the said company retreating the fact of assessee’s employment with Diamond Foot Care Udyog Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant period has confirmed that Rs.7,57,093/- was paid by company to the assessee to meet day to day expenses of transportation. The said confirmation is at page 147 of the paper book and is reproduced herein below for ready referece: 5 ITA No.2543/Del/2024 (AY 2011-12) 6. I observe that the AO has misread the confirmation at page 21 to mean that Rs.35,00,000/- lumpsum was paid by the company, whereas nowhere in the said confirmation it is mentioned that the cash amount was paid in lumpsum. There is variation in amount mentioned in certificate (page 21) and subsequent reply to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act. However, the fact remains that the assessee was in employment of Diamond Foot Care Udyog Pvt. Ltd and the said Company had reimbursed transportation expenses to the assessee in cash. Considering entire facts of the case and documents on record, I find merit in the submissions of the assessee. The assessee has been able to substantiate that the amount of Rs.21,57,000/- deposited in the bank account of the assessee is in fact the amount received by the assessee from the employer company for incurring expenditure towards transportation viz. maintenance, fuel, toll tax, etc. Thus, addition of Rs.21,57,000/- u/s. 68A of the Act is directed to be deleted. 7. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 29th day April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 29.04.2025 NV/- 6 ITA No.2543/Del/2024 (AY 2011-12) ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "