Ms. Tripta Bhatia, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1207/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1711 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR ANJULA JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: B B BHAGAT
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 1207 /DEL/201 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 200 6 - 07 ) TRIPTA BHATIA, R - 8/3, GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI - 110016. PAN - AAGPB4670F ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD - 24(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SH.B.B.BHAGAT, ADV. RESPONDENT BY DR.ANJULA JAIN, SR.DR ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE C ORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 25 .11.2013 OF CIT(A) - X, DELHI PERTAINING TO 200 6 - 0 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,000 ON ASSUMPTION AND SURMISES. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT ALL THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK BELONGED TO PERSONS SETTLED ABROAD. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN CASH DEPOSITS AND SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS.40,000 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269 SS WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. 5. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE ADDITION MADE IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 2. HOWEVER BEFORE ADDRE SSING THE ISSUES AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, IT IS NECESSARY TO FIRST ADDRESS THE DELAY OF 90 DAYS SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS RECORDED IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOUND PLACED AT PAGES 1 & 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD.AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE SAME SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDER A MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT THE APPEAL COULD BE FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS APPROACH ED THE COUNSEL LATE. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM A VIRAL FEVER, T HE POSITION WAS NOT CROSS - CHECKED FROM THE COUNSEL . AS A RESULT OF THIS FACT IT WAS PLEADED THAT DATE OF HEARING 03 .0 8 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09 . 1 0 .2015 I.T.A .NO. - 1207/ DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 4 THE DELAY OF 90 DAYS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY HAS OCCURRED. THE LD. SR. DR, DR. ANJULA JAIN CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE PLEAD INGS HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE DELAY IS CONDONED. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH AND THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSE E IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE DELAY IS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE REVENUE AND CONSIDERING THE RECORD THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 3. ADDRESSING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. AR REFERRING TO THE PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 21 P AGES SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS HAD NOT BEEN CONVINCINGLY EXPLAINED. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.1,95,630/ - . T HE INCOME IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS ASSESSED AT RS.3,87,630/ - PURSUANT TO THE DEPOSITS OF RS.1,52,000/ - AND RS.40,000/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN. THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND THE SAID ACTION WAS CARRIED FURTHER BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT SELF WAS EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 2.2. (I) WITH REGARD TO THE VARIOUS DEPOSITS, THE A.R. STATED THAT THE SAME WERE EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - (A) AN AMOUNT OF RS.40,000/ - WAS REC EIVED ON 23.04.2005 FROM NEETA G ROVER, ASSESSEE S SISTER SETTLED IN CANADA. IN THIS REGARD, COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF NEETA GROVER HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED TO THE A.O. (B) AN AMOUNT OF RS.25,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 26.11 .2005, IS ACTUALLY 28.11.2005 AND WAS OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM BANK OF PUNJAB. (C) AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,000/ - ON 30.01.2006 WAS A TEMPORARY LOAN FROM ASSESSEE S HUSBAND. (D) AN AMOUNT OF RS.15,000/ - ON 16.04.2005 AND RS.32,000/ - ON 19.04.2 005 WAS OUT OF CASH LYING AT HOME FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSE. (E) AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,000/ - ON29.04.2005 WAS CASH GIVEN BY ASSESSEE S DAUGHTER SETTLED IN CANADA. 4. IN THESE CIRCU M S TA N CES, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES IN THE PROPER P E RSPECTIVE PROBABLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT BROUGHT OUT CLEARLY IN THE REPRESENTATION THAT THESE DEPOSITS WERE EXPLAINED FROM THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN ASSESSEE S BOOK S OF ACCOUNT FOR SMT. NITA GROV ER, ASSESSEE S SISTER SETTLED IN CANADA AND MONIKA I.T.A .NO. - 1207/ DEL/2014 PAGE 3 OF 4 BHATIA, SHASHI KALA AND SWAMI R AJBALDEV. APART FROM THAT SMALL AMOUNT OF RS.15,000/ - WAS EXPLAINED AS CASH LYING AT HOM E FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.25,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED FROM AN EARLIER WITHDRAWAL FROM A BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN BANK OF PUNJAB. SIMILARLY RS.20,000/ - WAS EXPLAINED AS TEMPORARY LOAN FROM ASSESSEE S HUSBAND. IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRAYER THAT THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES OF RUNNING ACCOUNT IN ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AVAILABLE AND MAY BE TAKEN ON RECORD . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT EITHER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE S , THE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED ALTERNATIVELY AS S ESSEE MAY BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE SAME BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES . THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IT WAS SUBMITTED WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN RIGHT AND E VEN A TEMPORARY LOAN TAKEN FROM HIM HAS BEEN ADDED AS ASSESSEE S INCO M E. SIMILARLY THE DEPOSITS MADE FROM THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BA N KS ETC. H AS ALSO NOT BEEN CONSIDERED . 5. THE LD. SR. DR CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH IS FOUND REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FURTHER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BEFORE THE BENCH STATED THAT SHE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED HO WEVER DELETION AT THIS STAGE HOLDING THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UNREASONABLE WAS OBJECTED TO. 6 . I N THE L I GH T O F THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BEFORE THE BENCH AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . I AM OF THE VIEW THA T THE FINDING ARRIVED AT IN A CURSORY MANNER COMPLETELY DISMISSING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE UPHELD. TAKING FURTHER NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCES FILED IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM MAY NEED FURTHER ELABORATION AND T HE ASSESSEE MAY NEED TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM BY FILING FURTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 9 T H OF OCTOB ER, 2015. S D / - (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 0 9 / 1 0 /2015 * AMIT KUMAR * I.T.A .NO. - 1207/ DEL/2014 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI