Sh. Sanjeev Khatri, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1273/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6782 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: H C PARASHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC-I : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1273/DEL./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI SANJEEV KHATRI, VS. ITO, WARD 22 (1), 26, BLOCK K, LOCAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. KALKAJI, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AIGPK2900F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.C. PARASHAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI ROBIN RAWAL, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.02.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) DATED 28.11.2013. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES T O THE SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITION OF RS.10,20,123/- BY THE CIT (A) MADE BY T HE AO IN RESPECT OF THE CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUN T. 3. I HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONS IDERED THE SAME. I NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS.5,45,60 0/- AND RS.4,74,523/- FROM HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, M/S. NATIONAL TRADING C OMPANY. THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAID AMOUNT IS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET F OR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2007 AND 31.03.2008 RESPECTIVELY IN ADDITION TO THE DRAW ING BEING MADE BY THE ITA NO.1273/DEL./2014 2 ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,32,800/- AND RS.1,29,535 /-. IN MY OPINION, THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN P ROVING THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DOING ANY WORK DURI NG THE YEAR, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MEETING OUT HIS D EBIT EXPENSES. SUCH OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A), IN MY OPINION, IS JUST BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. THEY HAVE NOT APPRECIATED THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EACH OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A NET PROFIT OF RS.1,65,500/- AND RS.1,61,750 /- RESPECTIVELY IN HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. THIS ITSELF PROVED THAT TH E PRESUMPTION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE LEGS TO STAND. I A CCORDINGLY DELETE THE ADDITION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.