ITO, New Delhi V. Smt. Veena Kumari, New Delhi

ITA 1000/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82171 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J P CHANDRAKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG , JM ITA NO: 1000 /DEL/20 12 A Y : - 200 7 - 08 ITO, WARD 25(4) VS. MRS. VEENA KUMARI 304 D, 3 RD FLOOR H.NO. 1117, SOM BAZAR VIKAS BHAWAN NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 43 PAN: AAJPK 0681 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. AJAY WADHWA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. J.P.CHANDRAKAR, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 22.12.2011 OF LD.CIT(A) - XXIV, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8. 2. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI AJAY WADHWA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI JP CHANDRAKAR, LD.SR.D.R. ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 4.3 AND 4.4 OF HIS ORDER HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS. 4.3 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS AND AVERMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND I FIND THAT THERE IS A LOT OF MERIT IN HER CONTENTIONS. I HAVE CHECKED THE ASSESSM ENT RECORD AND THE LETTER WRITTEN BY HER TO THE AO DATED 18.11.2008 IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WHEREIN SHE HAS GIVEN A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.13,74,000 /. HOWEVER, THESE EXPLANATIONS DO NOT FIND ANY MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A PPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED CERTAIN CASH ITA NO.1000/DEL/2012 AY: 2007 - 08 MRS. VEENA KUMARI 2 MEMOS AND BILLS PERTAINING TO PURCHASE OF HANDLOOM ITEMS, BED - SHEETS, BLANKETS AND CURTAIN CLOTH ETC. THESE CASH MEMOS ALSO INCLUDE CASH MEMOS FROM SATISH CLOTH HOUSE TO WHOM CHEQUES HAVE ALSO BEEN ISSUED, AS EVIDEN CED FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. THUS, THE FACTUM OF BUSINESS BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT IS BORNE OUT BY EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. ONCE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A DETAILED EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITE D IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE AO TO EITHER VERIFY THE SAME AND ACCEPT IT, OR CARRY OUT FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS TO PROVE THAT THE EVIDENCES WERE FALSE AND COOKED UP. NO SUCH ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO AND THE EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATION S HAVE BEEN REGALLY AND SUMMARILY DISMISSED . 4.4. IN MY OPINION, WHEREAS ON THE ONE HAND, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES, WITHOUT GIVING ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY HE REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT, ON T HE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO PLACE SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION OFRS. 13,74,000/ - BEING CASH DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT IN KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. DOES NOT STAND THE TEST OF JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND IS THEREFORE DELETED . 4. THE LD.SR.D.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE LE TTER WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO EXPLAINING THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.13,74,000/ - WAS DT. 18.11.2008, AND WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HE ALSO COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BUSINESS IS BEING CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT THE AO NEITHER VERIFIED NOR CARRIED OUT ANY INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE DETAILED EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON CASH DEPOSITS. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EVIDENCES HAVE TO B E ACCEPTED. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THIS ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1000/DEL/2012 AY: 2007 - 08 MRS. VEENA KUMARI 3 5. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH DECEMBER ,2014. SD/ - SD/ - ( C.M. GARG ) ( J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 10 TH DECEMBER , ,2014 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR