CIT-III, LUDHIANA V. SONIA DHILLON

ITA/209/2010

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax-III Ludhiana against Sonia Dhillon concerning additions made to her income for the assessment year 2000-01, which were later deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal. The additions were initially made by the Assessing Officer based on unexplained deposits in the respondent's bank account and unexplained investments. The Tribunal's decision to delete these additions was challenged by the Revenue, which argued that the lower authorities had erred in their appreciation of the evidence. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal and CIT(A) had correctly interpreted the evidence and law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 737974 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEK SETHI
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Chandigarh Bench; Income tax appellate tribunal; Unexplained credit; Unexplained investment
• Section: 148; 144; 260-A

Judgement Text

"- . 209 2010 Income tax Appeal No of 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ----- Income-tax Appeal No. 209 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.7.2010 Commissioner of Income-tax-III Ludhiana --- Appellant Versus Sonia Dhillon, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana --- Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Standing Counsel for the appellant-assessee. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The Revenue has approached this Court under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act’) and has prayed that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for the consideration of this Court, from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh, (for short “the Tribunal”) passed on 28.5.2009, in Income-tax Appeal No. 147/CHD/2009 for the assessment year 2000-01: 1- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances , of the case the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in - . 209 2010 Income tax Appeal No of 2 . 7,72,837/- deleting the addition of Rs made on account of unexplained credit in the bank . account of the assessee 2- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances , of the case the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in . 6,50,000/- deleting the addition of Rs made on account of unexplained investment in making . . advance to Sh Surjit Singh ” On the basis of an intimation that the assessee was having unexplained deposits in her bank , . 7,72,837/-, , account amounting to Rs and further she failed . to explain the source of advances in the sum of Rs 12,50,000/-, , / . given to Surjit Singh Sharanjit Kaur and M s , 147 , Goodwill Metal Ltd proceedings under Section of the Act . , were started against the assessee Accordingly a notice 148 under Section of the Act was issued to the assessee on 24.5.2006. Observing no compliance on behalf of the , , assessee the Assessing Officer after making additions of the , 24.12.2007 above amounts framed assessment on under - . 209 2010 Income tax Appeal No of 3 144 , Section of the Act at net taxable income of .20,97,837/-. Rs The appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer met with partial success before - ( )- , [( the Commissioner of Income tax A II Ludhiana in short “ ( ) ]. , . the CIT A ” Consequently the additions of Rs 7,72,837/- alleged to be unexplained deposits of the . 6,50,000/- assessee and of sum of Rs as unexplained , investment by means of advance to Surjit Singh were deleted 21.11.2008. , ( ) vide order dated In other words the CIT A . 14,22,837/-. gave relief to the assessee in the sum of Rs ( ) The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT A before the , 147/ /2009 , Tribunal by filing ITA Chd whereas assessee . 182/ /2009. preferred ITA No Chd The Tribunal affirmed the ( ) order of the CIT A and dismissed both the appeals vide 28.5.2009. order dated We have heard learned counsel for the appellant . and have perused the record - . 209 2010 Income tax Appeal No of 4 The Assessing Officer had made addition of . 7,72,837/- Rs on the basis of the fact that the assessee had not been able to explain the credit of that sum in her . . 12,50,000/- bank account An addition of other sum of Rs was made on the ground that the assessee had not explained the source of that sum that was shown to have . been advanced to Surjit Singh and two others As noticed , ( ) earlier the CIT A deleted the addition of the entire sum of .7,72,837/- Rs which had been found to be an unexplained , credit in the bank account of the assessee and deleted . 6,50,000/-, . further addition of Rs out of the sum of Rs 12,50,000/- which had been observed to be an investment . by the assessee from unexplained sources The finding of the Assessing Officer was consequently reversed to that . extent The Tribunal put its seal of affirmation on the ( ). order of the CIT A While dealing with the challenge to . 7,72,837/-, , the addition in the sum of Rs the Tribunal in 2 , : para of its judgment recorded as under - . 209 2010 Income tax Appeal No of 5 “ I have carefully considered the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the . relevant record Though the appellant did not avail the opportunity for furnishing the necessary , information before the Assessing Officer the documents being copy of bank account of the , appellant which is in question and the statement . 27.4.2002 of S Bhupinder Singh Dhillon dated being very much on the file of the DDIT and which information is stated to have been obtained 3 by the Assessing Officer as per para of the , assessment order the Assessing Officer should have taken these documents into consideration for . , deciding the issue in hand Further in view of the facts and circumstances explained by the appellant , . . and which have been discussed above i e - appellant’s husband being bed ridden on account of being chronic heart patient and the appellant being only person in the family to look after him and further she herself having suffered from depression - . 209 2010 Income tax Appeal No of 6 . etc the additional documents which are just corroborating the factual position already stated in 27.4.2002 the statement dated and the evidence which goes to the root of the issue in hand and is very much relevant to impart substantial justice are . admitted , Coming to the merits of the case as . 1,50,000/- . far as the credits of Rs and Rs 6,22,837/- 5.4.1999 7.5.1999 , on and respectively . 121 in the bank account No in Canara Bank are , concerned it has been consistently stated that these documents were received on account of maturity of certain policies from Peerls Green ., . Forest Ltd New Delhi The amounts are shown to be received by cheque as per the copy of bank . , account itself Therefore this contention of the appellant being verifiable from the record is to be . accepted It is further seen that the premium whatsoever paid in respect of these policies was paid during the period earlier to the period relevant - . 209 2010 Income tax Appeal No of 7 . to assessment year under consideration Though it is shown that these policies were originally , purchased by Shri Shad Nicklas a paternal uncle , to the appellant and that the premium whatsoever , were paid by him without going into this aspect of the case even if the sources of the same are , taken to be explained the adverse inference could be drawn only for the assessment year during . , which the premium was paid However keeping in , view the factual position as above as far as 2000-01 , assessment year is concerned no adverse inference could be drawn against the . . 7,72,837/- appellant The addition of Rs treating , , these receipts to be unexplained is therefore not . in order and the same is accordingly deleted ” . 6,50,000/- As regards deletion of Rs from . 12,50,000/-, loan amount of Rs the Tribunal recorded as : under - . 209 2010 Income tax Appeal No of 8 “ Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer was also . informed that the assessee has given loan of Rs 12,50,000/- , . to Shri Surjit Singh Nanda Smt / . . Sharanjit Kaur and to M s Goodwill Metals Ltd It was further pointed out that the assessee filed a , suit in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ludhiana to the fact that the aforesaid loan has not been . returned The learned Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has not explained the . 12,50,000/-, , source of Rs consequently it was , treated that the amount has escaped assessment consequently added as unexplained income of the . , assessee On appeal the learned first appellate . 6 authority found that the loan of Rs lakh paid to , , Shri Surjit Singh is not explained consequently the addition to this extent was confirmed and the . 6,50,000/- remaining amount of Rs was deleted which is under challenge by the Revenue before . the Tribunal We have found that out of total loan . 12,50,000/-, . of Rs the amount of Rs - . 209 2010 Income tax Appeal No of 9 6,50,000/- . was paid from same bank account No 121 . 31306 6.4.1999 vide cheque No dated and 10.5.1999 . , respectively Even otherwise it is not the case that the learned first appellate authority blindly accepted the contention of the assessee , rather wherever he was not satisfied he has not accepted the explanation extended by the , , assessee therefore we have not found any , , infirmity in the impugned order on this issue also . consequently this ground is dismissed ” Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal . 7,72,000/- was in error in upholding the deletion of Rs ( ) made by the CIT A on account of unexplained deposit to the . income of the assessee It was argued that the finding ( ) recorded by the CIT A and affirmed by the Tribunal that a . 6,00,000/- sum of Rs was the explained amount of the , , . assessee is erroneous perverse and against the record , According to the learned counsel the evidence on record has . not been properly appreciated by the appellate authority - . 209 2010 Income tax Appeal No of 10 Learned counsel for the Revenue made strenuous - efforts to persuade this Court to re appreciate the evidence . and record fresh conclusion on the basis thereof But the - - counsel could not point out any mis reading or mis appreciation of evidence on the basis of which it could be ( ), recorded that the findings of CIT A which were approved , . by the Tribunal were erroneous or perverse in any manner The view taken by the authorities below is plausible view . based on appreciation of evidence available on record No , , . , exception can therefore be taken to said findings We , 260 therefore in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section A - of the Act would not like to re appreciate the evidence available on record and record a different conclusion on the basis thereof as sought to be contended by the learned . counsel for the appellant - . 209 2010 Income tax Appeal No of 11 , In view of the above we are of the opinion that the substantial questions of law proposed on behalf of the Revenue do not arise in this case that may attract attention . of this Court for decision The appeal is consequently . dismissed (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) July 21, 2010 JUDGE *rkmalik* "