Ram Sagar Pandey, Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Lucknow

ITA 131/LKW/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8074 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVASHISH MEHROTRA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144; 133(6)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.131/LKW/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2016-17 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.131/LKW/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2016-16 SHRI RAM SAGAR PANDEY B-155, INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AGKPP0856H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(3), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-1, LUCKNOW DATED 12/12/2019 PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2016- 2017. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OF RS.2,20,000/- WHICH HE HAD MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED THIS AMOUNT IN CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 144 OF T HE ACT AND SIMILARLY THE APPELLANT BY SHRI DEVASHISH MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI HARISH GIDWANI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 17/08/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25 /0 8 /2021 I.T.A. NO.131/LKW/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2016-17 2 LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER EX-PARTY QUA AS SESSEE AND THE REASON FOR NOT APPEARING OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SERIOUSLY ILL AND IN THIS RESPECT FILE D COPIES OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATES. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION, LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE A DDITION BY HOLDING THAT CASH OF RS.2,20,000/- WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN CASH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD OBTAINED COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE BANK BY ISSUING SUMMONS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT BUT WHILE RELYING ON SUCH STATEMENTS HAS OVERLOOKED THE CASH OF RS.13,65,000/- WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE S AME BANK ACCOUNT IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING MONTH AND IN THIS RESPECT I NVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF SUCH BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS.2,20,000/- IS FULLY EXPLAINED BY THE WITHDRAWALS IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING MONTH AND, THEREFORE, IT WA S PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED. 4. LEARNED D. R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER AN D, THEREFORE, THE CASE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS F RESH ADJUDICATION. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN THE REJOIND ER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN OLD MAN AND IS STILL SUFFERING F ROM THE DISEASE AND SINCE THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS JUST IGNORED IT THEREFORE, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED AND IT WAS PRAYED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DECIDED HERE ITSELF AS THE ENTIRE MATERIAL IS AV AILABLE FOR ARRIVING AT THE DECISION. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD MADE THE ADDITION BY CALLING INFORMATION FROM THE BANK WHICH PROVIDED A COPY OF BANK I.T.A. NO.131/LKW/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2016-17 3 STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE GOING THROUGH THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT, I OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN RS.5,00,000/- ON 16/04/2015, RS.4,00,000/- ON 17/04/2015, RS.4,20,000/- ON 20/04 /2015 AND HAD DEPOSITED RS.2,00,000/- ON 01/05/2015 AND RS.20,000 /- ON 05/06/2015. THE DEPOSITS OF RS.2,20,000/- MADE ON 01/05/2015 AN D 05/06/2015 ARE FULLY EXPLAINABLE FROM THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING MONTH. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IS DELETED. 7. AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED D. R. THAT TH E CASE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS BOTH AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER, I FIND THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE ACHIEV ED BY SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ASSESSING O FFICER ALREADY HAD THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT WHICH CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES T HAT THE DEPOSITS WERE DULY EXPLAINABLE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN OLD PERSON AND IS SERIOUSLY ILL, I ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/08/2021) SD/. ( T. S. KAPOOR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:25/08/2021 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW