The Income tax Officer,Ward-20(3), New Delhi V. Renu Maingi, New Delhi

ITA 1240/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0908 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C GUPTA
• Keywords: Peak credit
• Section: 69A; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA : VICE PRESIDENT AN D SHRI C.L. SETHI : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1240/DEL/09 ASSTT. YR: 2005-06 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. RENU MAINGI WARD-20(3), NEW DELHI. A-328, DERAWAL NAGAR, DELHI. PAN/ GIR NO. AGRPM1940J ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.C. GUPTA SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, V.P : THIS APPEAL, BY THE REVENUE, ARISES OUT OF THE ORDE R DATED 16-1-2009 OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06.THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,57,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACC OUNT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD COME TO A FINDING THAT SUM CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT DESPITE NOTICE OF H EARING SENT TO HER. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL EX PARTE, ON MERIT, QUA THE ITA NO. 1240/DEL/09 RENU MAINGI 2 ASSESSEE AND IN THAT PROCESS WE HAVE HEARD THE LEAR NED DR AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. 3. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DEL ETED THE ADDITION ON TECHNICAL GROUND THAT NO ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DEP OSITS CAN BE MADE U/S 68 AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS, WHEREAS IN FACT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES MADE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO LEARNED DR, IN FACT THE CIT(A) IN THE EARLIER PA RAGRAPH HAS STATED THAT A PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THERE WERE D EPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS AND ONLY PEAK CREDIT OR THE PEAK OF THE DEPOSITS RE QUIRED TO BE WORKED OUT, BUT HE LOST SIGHT OF THESE FACTS WHILE DISPOSING O FF THE APPEAL AND CHOSE TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON TECHNICAL GROUND WITHOUT APP RECIATING THE FACT THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITS. THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY POINTED OUT THAT T HE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST DIRECTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK C REDIT IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT AND WAS WRONG IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITI ON. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS INCLUDING THE I MPUGNED ORDERS AND ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES TO BE S ET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE B ANK ACCOUNT DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE SHALL EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT. IF SHE FAILS TO DO SO BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ITA NO. 1240/DEL/09 RENU MAINGI 3 TO ADD THE PEAK OF THE CREDITS IN THE SAID BANK ACC OUNT U/S 69A OF THE ACT. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS TREATED AS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2009. SD/- SD/- ( C.L. SETHI ) ( G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 9 TH OCT. 2009. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR