Mahesh Chand, Bulandshahr V. ITO Ward 2(3), Bulandshahr

ITA 1349/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9824 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 69; 144

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 1349/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. _1349/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mahesh Chand S/o Ram Prasad, Village Nazeempura, Bhoor, Distt. Bulandshahr (UP) PAN- ACOPL5964C Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Bulandshahr APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.10.2022 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad, dated 03.12.2018, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in this appeal relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs. 12,60,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2 ITA no. 1349/Del/2019 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) was reopened on the basis that there was AIR information relating to cash deposit by the assessee amounting to Rs. 12,60,000/- in his savings bank account no. 2899000100012563 held with Punjab National Bank, Yamunapuram, Bulandshahr. In response to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer no one attended the proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessment u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, treating the amount deposited by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 69 of the Act. Hence, the Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs. 12,60,000/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who also sustained the addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had duly explained the source of cash deposit. He submitted that before the Assessing Officer the assessee has clearly stated that the amount was deposited out of the cash withdrawn from the savings bank account and the agricultural income. He drew our attention to the various documents filed to support the contention that the assessee was the owner of agricultural land. He further took us to the bank 3 ITA no. 1349/Del/2019 statement (page no. 21 of the paper book), to demonstrate that prior to deposit of the cash deposits there were also cash withdrawals on 05.04.2008, 05.05.2008, 03.06.2008, 02.07.2008, 16.07.2008 and 20.09.2008. He submitted that the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact in right perspective and did not consider the evidences filed by the assessee. 5. The learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the assessment has been framed ex parte to the assessee. The Assessing authority had given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit. 6. In rejoinder the learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the letter written by the assessee to the assessing authority regarding explanation of source of cash deposit. 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record. We find that the assessee has placed on record various evidences relating to ownership of land, agreement regarding mango orchard and also earning of agricultural income. The Revenue has not brought any material to rebut these evidences. However, looking to the bank statement and these evidences we are of the considered view that authorities below were not justified in making the addition. Hence we hereby 4 ITA no. 1349/Del/2019 direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 25.10.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI