Jagjit Kaur, Patiala V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 1037/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4829 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1037/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 MRS. JAGJIT KAUR, HOUSE NO.144, GALI NO.9, GURU NANAK NAGAR, PATIALA VS. THE ITO, WARD 5(4), CHANDIGARH ./PAN NO:AMZPK1467G / APPELLANT '# /RESPONDENT $ %&'( /ASSESSEE BY : SH. PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA '( / REVENUE BY : SH. ARVIND SUDERSHAN, JCIT ) *'& + /DATE OF HEARING : 13.10.2020 ,-./ '& + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2020 / ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.5.2019 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, GUR GAON. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSIT ION OF THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 06/2017-18 HA S ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIO NS OF S. 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE 2 HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4,66,000/- IN RESPECT OF A LLEGED CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNTS. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION , DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 3. FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS IT WOULD BE CLEAR THA T THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,66,000/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,66,000 /- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.7.2020 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,82 ,562/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT 'THE ACT') ON 10.4.2011. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR S CRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 10,66, 000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH VIJAY BANK, SECTOR 17, CHAN DIGARH ON VARIOUS DATES. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUN T DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WERE OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND SOLD AND THE WITHDRAWALS FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH V IJAYA BANK, SECTOR 17, CHANDIGARH AND PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE BANK, SECTOR 44, CHANDIGARH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATISFIED FROM THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,66,000/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE IN LIMINE. THEREAFTER, THE 3 ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT WHEREIN VI DE ORDER DATED 16.3.2017, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS BY GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE DIRE CTION OF THE ITAT, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL AND ALLOWED RELIE F OF RS. 6 LACS WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE MATU RITY AMOUNT OF ICICI INSURANCE. THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS. 4,66 ,000/- WAS SUSTAINED. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS WAS S TATED TO BE WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ACCOUNTS BUT NEITHER THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOR THE LD. CIT(A) CO-RELATED THOSE WITHDRAWALS WITH T HE DEPOSITS AND MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS PAGE NO.23 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHI CH IS THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID CASH FLOW STATEMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HAD THE ENTRIES OF WITHDRAWALS WERE CO-RELATED WITH THE AMOUNT DEPO SITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THEN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS T OTALLY EXPLAINED. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. SR. DR STRONGL Y SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE P RESENT CASE IT APPEARS THAT IN SPITE OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE ITAT I N THE DECISION DATED 4 16.3.2017, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, PARTICULARLY THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO BE UTILISED FOR MAKING IN DEPOSITS WERE NOT CONSIDERED PROPERLY. WE, THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PECULI AR FACTS OF THIS CASE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS LIMITED ISSUE RE LATING TO THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,66,000/- TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND BY CONSIDERING T HE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED WAS OUT O F THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND A CASH FLOW STATEMENT WA S FURNISHED FOR THE SAID PURPOSE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13.10.2020) SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 13.10.2020 .. 1''&2343.& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. '# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ) 5& / CIT 4. ) 5& ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 36 '&7$ , + 7$/ , 89:; / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. :< * / GUARD FILE 1 ) / BY ORDER, = / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 5