ITO, W-1, Malerkotla V. Sh. Darshan Singh, Dhuri

ITA 1410/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6510 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1410/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE ITO, VS. SH. DARSHAN SINGH, WARD-1, S/O SH. PRITAM SINGH, MALERKOTLA VIL. SMUNDGRH, P.O. KANDHARGARH, TEHSIL-DHURI PAN NO. EEYPS1032G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA . RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 21.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.12.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]-2, LUDHIANA DATED 18.07.2017. 2. THE REVENUE HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A ) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE. 2 3. NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSING O FFICER NOTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30 LACS WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. HE SHOW CAUSED THE ASSES SEE IN THIS RESPECT BUT DID NOT FIND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE SATISFACTORY. IN VIEW OF THIS, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 30 LACS INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS, EVIDEN CE AND EXPLAINED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM HIS FATHE R AS GIFT. THE SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID GIFT WAS OUT OF THE SALE OF LAND M ADE BY HIS FATHER. HE NOT ONLY PRODUCED COPIES OF THE SALE DEED BUT ALSO HIS OWN AFFIDAVIT WITH REGARD TO THE RECEIPT OF GIFT. UPON THE EVIDENCE S O FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT F ROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AND TH E COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE UPON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED TH E SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NO MORE IN THE WORLD. THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION TO DO UBT ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER, WHICH IN TURN WAS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN VIE W OF THIS, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 3. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE AF ORESAID WELL-REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HERE BY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21.12.2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR