Smt. Abha Srivastava, Raibareli V. Inocme Tax Officer-1, Raibareli

CO 14/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4139 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NEIL JAIN
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER CO NO.14/LKW/2015 (IN ITA NO. 133/LKW/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 INCOME - TAX OFFICER - 1, RAEBARELI VS SMT. ABHA SRIVASTAVA, W/O SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, TYPE-1/157,NTPC, COLONY, UNCHAHAR, RAEBARELI PAN AXHPS 9701 Q (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI P.K. KAPOOR, C.A. APPELLANT BY SHRI NEIL JAIN, DR RESPONDENT BY 01/06/2016 DATE OF HEARING 05 / 07 /201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL, AM: 1. THIS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING ITA NO. 133/LKW/2015. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 SINCE NOT PRESSED STANDS DISMISS ED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(A)-III,LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE THEORY OF PEAK CREDIT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE THEORY OF PEAK CREDIT WILL APPLY ONLY IN THE CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE ASKS FOR ITS APPLICATION IN ORDER TO AVOID MULTIPLE AND REPETITIVE ADDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BUT FAILED TO SUBST ANTIATE THAT THE WHOLE CASH DEPOSITS TO BE OUT OF THE BUSINESS RECEI PTS OF HER HUSBAND. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES B ELOW. WE NOTED FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING 2 OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.16,90,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF T HE CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF HE R BANK ACCOUNT NO. 412000062763 IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, UNCHAHAR BRAN CH, RAEBAREILI. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE AFORESAID ADDITION IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A) AND HAS TAKEN GROUND AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.16,90,000/-. THE ASSESSE E HAS ALSO TAKEN AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IN CAS E THE ADDITION OF RS.16,90,000/- IS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A), THE ADDI TION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO PEAK CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT THE PEAK CREDI T ON 18.03.2009 AT RS.2,39,000/- IN RESPECT OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. THE CIT(A) WE NOTED ALLOWED THE MAIN GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADD ITION OF RS.16,90,000/- BUT CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,39,000/- BY DISMISSI NG THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DO AGREE WITH THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESS EE THAT IF THE MAIN GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A), THE ALTERNA TIVE GROUND DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEG TO STAND. THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND BECOMES INFRUC TUOUS. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, SHOULD HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION OF RS.2,39,000/-. WE ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE SAME. THUS, THE GROUND NO.2 STANDS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STAN DS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (P.K . BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 05/07/2016 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REG ISTRAR