Leela Devi, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 35(8), New Delhi

ITA 1423/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6423 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH DUBEY
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Period of limitation
• Section: 69A; 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC-1: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.1423/DEL./2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 LEELA DEVI C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, NEW DELHI. PAN NO. BLKPD7965F VS. ITO WARD 35(8) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE FOR REVENUE : SHRI PRAKASH DUBEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 .01.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 .0 2 .2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-13, NEW DELHI DATED 25.02 .2020 FOR AY 2017-18, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LAKH S ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT U/S 69A OF THE IT ACT. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 2 ITA.NO.1423/DEL./2020 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.03.2018 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,03,940/-. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVI NG INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 15 LAKHS WITH HDFC BANK DURING DEMONETIZATION PERIOD (09.11.2016 TO 30.12.2016). THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT CASH DEPOSITED DURING THE DEMONETIZATION PERIOD INCLUDES LIFE TIME SAVINGS AND PART OF CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK ACCOUNT IN EA RLIER YEARS FOR PERSONAL SECURITY AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD EXP ENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT HER WITHDRAWAL DUR ING FY 2014-15 WAS RS. 14,50,000/-. THE REPLY OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT FOUND TENABLE, THEREFORE, CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1 5 LAKHS IN BANK ACCOUNT IS TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69A OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED IN T HE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE SIMILAR SUBMISSIONS THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THREE INSTAL LMENTS OF RS. 5 LAKHS EACH ON 19.11.2016, 24.11.2016 AND 29.1 1.2016. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A MATRIMONIAL DISPU TE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES SON AND HER DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AFTER THE MARRIAGE WHICH WAS PERFORMED IN JUNE, 2012. HOWEVE R, THE 3 ITA.NO.1423/DEL./2020 DAUGHTER-IN-LAW DESERTED THE ASSESSEES SON IN NOVE MBER, 2013. THE ASSESSEES SON HAS FILED A DIVORCE PETIT ION IN FAMILY COURT, ROHINI ON 18.10.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKE N A BANK LOAN OF RS. 25,16,722/- IN JUNE, 2014 FOR SETTLEMEN T OF MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN CA SH AMOUNTING TO RS. 18 LAKHS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT IN FY 2014- 15 FROM 16.06.2014 TO 15.11.2014 IN THE ANTICIPATIO N OF SETTLEMENT OF MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, THE MATRIMONIAL DI SPUTE WAS NOT SETTLED TILL THE DEMONETIZATION, THEREFORE, CAS H OF RS. 15 LAKHS LYING AT THE HOUSE WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE CASH DEPOSIT IS EXPLAINED A S ABOVE. ULTIMATELY, THE MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE WAS SETTLED VID E STATEMENT DATED 17.08.2019 FOR A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 23 LAKHS OU T WHICH RS. 7 LAKH WAS PAID TO THE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW ON 21.08 .2019 AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 16 LAKHS WAS PAID TO DAUGHTER -IN-LAW IN TWO INSTALLMENTS. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, EXPL AINED THAT CASH DEPOSIT IS FROM THESE SOURCES. THE LD. CIT(A) , HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4.4 OF THE OR DER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4.4 A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FACTS HIGHLIGHTS THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT BEFORE THE AO WAS THAT THESE WERE HER LIFE 4 ITA.NO.1423/DEL./2020 TIME SAVINGS AND PART OF CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK IN THE EARLIER YEARS FOR PERSONAL SECURITY AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES. HOWEVER, DURING APPEAL IT WAS STATED THAT THE MONEY DEPOSITED DURIN G THE DEMONETIZATION PERIOD WAS THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM THE BANK IN FY 2014-15 AND EARLIER YEARS HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS. THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN IN ANTICIPATION OF SETTLEMENT OF A MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE OF THE APPELLANTS SON AND HIS SPOUSE. IT WAS STATED THAT A DIVORCE PETITION WAS FILED ON 18.10.2014. I T IS ALSO STATED THAT A BANK LOAN OF RS. 25,16,722/- WAS TAKEN FOR SETTLEMENT OF MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE AND THE APPELLANT WITHDREW RS. 19,00,000/- BETWEEN 16.06.2014 TO 24.10.2014 IN ANTICIPATION OF SETTLEMENT OF MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE. AS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE AO, THE APPELLANTS EXPLANATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ACCEPTABLE OR TENABLE. WHILE THE CLAIM THAT THE MONEY WITHDRAWN WAS OUT OF THE BANK LOAN TAKEN (NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN THIS REGARD), THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 15 LACS DURING DEMONETIZATION PERIOD I.E. AFTER MORE THAN TWO YEAR S IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. FURTHER, THE FACT THAT A LOA N WAS TAKEN IN ANTICIPATION OF SETTLEMENT OF MATRIMON IAL DISPUTE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE LOAN LIABILITY IS O NLY INCURRED WHEN THE LIABILITY IS TO BE DISCHARGED WIT HOUT FURTHER DELAY. THE FACT THAT RS. 19 LACS WAS WITHDRAWN AND NOT UTILIZED IS BEYOND REASONED UNTENABLE. IT IS ALSO NOT CLARIFIED AS TO WHEN THE LOAN WAS REPAID AND THE INTEREST LIABILITY WHICH ACCRUED THEREON. CONSIDERING THAT THE PETITION WAS FILED I N OCTOBER, 2014 AND THE FINAL ORDER OF SETTLEMENT WAS PASSED ON 21.08.2019 I.E. A GAP OF NEARLY FIVE YEAR S, IT CANNOT BE THE CASE THAT THE APPELLANT WITHDREW MONEY AND HELD ON AS CASH IN HAND FOR TWO YEARS IN ANTICIPATION OF SETTLEMENT OF THE MATRIMONIAL DISPU TE AND ON ACCOUNT OF DEMONETIZATION THE SAME AMOUNT 5 ITA.NO.1423/DEL./2020 MONEY WAS WITHDRAWN TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15 LACS WAS DEPOSITED THEREFROM. HENCE, THE APPELLANTS EXPLANATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LAC S U/S 69A R.W.S. 115BBE AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY IS HEREBY CONFIRMED . 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSI ONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RELIED UPON CERTA IN DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, COP IES OF WHICH ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO RELIED UPON TH E JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIV CHARAN DASS VS. CIT 126 ITR 263. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN RULE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY IS APPLIED TO THE FACT S OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT DURING DEMONETIZATION P ERIOD, THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSE SSEE MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 15 LAKHS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT DU RING DEMONETIZATION PERIOD. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER A PPEAL IS 2017-18 AND THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY FILED THE RET URN OF INCOME BELATEDLY ON 25.03.2018. THE ASSESSEE EXPLA INED BEFORE AO THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT 6 ITA.NO.1423/DEL./2020 WAS LIFE TIME SAVINGS AND CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE B ANK IN EARLIER YEARS FOR PERSONAL SECURITY AND OTHER HOUSE HOLD EXPENDITURES. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY FURTHER DETAILS BEFORE AO. THE MONEY WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN F ROM JUNE, 2014 TO NOVEMBER, 2014. AS PER EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE THIS AMOUNT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPANDED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR PERSONAL SECURITY AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO TH E ASSESSEE FOR MAKING CASH DEPOSIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT IN NOVE MBER, 2016. ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE AU THORITIES BELOW THAT FROM YEAR JUNE, 2014 TILL NOVEMBER 2016, WHAT WAS HER SOURCE TO MAKE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES. IN ABSE NCE OF THESE DETAILS LD. DR RIGHTLY CONTENDED THAT WHEN RU LE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY IS APPLIED TO THE FACT S OF THE CASE, WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN BY ASSESSEE FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR 2014 MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY HER ON HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES. AS REGARDS, THE MATRIMONIA L DISPUTE BETWEEN SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER-IN-LAW , DIVORCE PETITION WAS FILED IN OCTOBER, 2014 AND ACCORDING T O EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, SHE HAS TAKEN LOAN OF RS. 25,16,722/- IN JUNE, 2014 FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE MAT RIMONIAL DISPUTE. IF THE SAME AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN OF RS. 1 8 LAKHS IN YEAR 2014, IT WAS NOT CONNECTED WITH MATRIMONIAL DI SPUTE OF THE SON OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE DIVORCE MATTER WAS SETTLED IN AUGUST, 2019 ONLY AND ASSESSEE HAS PAID FIRST INSTA LLMENT OF 7 ITA.NO.1423/DEL./2020 RS. 7 LAKHS IN AUGUST, 2019 AND, THEREAFTER, THE BA LANCE AMOUNT WAS TO BE PAID IN TWO INSTALLMENTS. THUS, I T IS A STORY CREATED BY ASSESSEE FOR WITHDRAWING THE AMOUNT FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE WHICH HAS NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER WITH THE MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN EARLIER IN YEAR 2014 FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN TEN IN STALLMENTS OF RS. 1 LAKH TO RS. 3 LAKH RESPECTIVELY. WHEN THE MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE WAS NOT SETTLED TILL AUGUST, 2019, THERE WA S NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP THE CASH AT HOME. WHEN AS SESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 15 LAKHS IN THREE INSTALL MENTS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT IN NOVEMBER, 2016, WOULD LEAD TO IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE WAS KEEPING U NACCOUNTED CASH MONEY OF RS. 15 LAKHS WITH HER AT THE TIME OF DEMONETIZATION PERIOD AND THE ASSESSEE REALIZING TH AT SUCH CURRENCY CANNOT BE USED ANYWHERE, SHE DEPOSITED SAM E IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND PURPOSELY THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BELATEDLY ON 25.03.2018 AFTER EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PROVIDED U/S 139(1) FOR FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN TH E PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LD. COUNS EL FOR ASSESSEE ARE THUS, CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DOES N OT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE OF THIS COURT TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS A CONTRADICTION IN THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BEFORE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE LD. CIT(A ). 8 ITA.NO.1423/DEL./2020 CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT DURING DEMONETIZATION P ERIOD. THUS, ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES, THERE FORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.02.2021. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 01.02.2021 *KAVITA ARORA COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.