ITO, Meerut V. Smt. Kamla Devi Gupta, Meerut

ITA 152/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81503 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: O P SAPRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 69C; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. V. MEHROTRA, AM AND SH. JOGINDER SIN GH, JM ITA NO. 152/DEL/2013 : ASST T. YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3) MEERUT VS SMT. KAMLA DEVI GUPTA, 154, NEW MOHAN PURI, MEERUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ADMPA3883A ASSESSEE BY : SH. O. P. SAPRA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. S. N. BHATIA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 6.8.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7.8.2014 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM: THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 22.10.2012 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MEERUT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. DR DEFENDED THE A DDITION MADE U/S 68 AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,00,000/- AND THE ADDITION OF RS . 22,40,630/- MADE U/S 69C OF THE ACT. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY LD . SENIOR DR SHRI S. N. BHATIA IS THAT WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSE SSEE U/S 68 AND 69C, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSAC TION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND ALSO FAILED TO FURN ISH THE DETAIL OF THE EXPENDITURE. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE R ELIEF U/S 68 AND 69C OF THE ACT WAS WRONGLY EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON TH E OTHER HAND, THE LD. ITA NO. 152/DEL/2013 KAMLA DEVI GUPTA 2 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE CONC LUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD . RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,01,00/- IN HER ACCOUNT. SHOW CA USE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT MAY NOT BE TRE ATED AS AN UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E ADVANCES WERE MADE TO SHRI TEJPAL SINGH AND SHRI DHARAMPAL SINGH FOR PURC HASING OF LAND BUT THE DEAL COULD NOT BE FINALIZED AND REFUND OF RS. 10,00 ,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI TEJPAL SINGH AND SH RI DHARAMPAL SINGH WAS RECORDED WHEREIN THEY ACCEPTED THAT THEY RECEIV ED THE ADVANCE IN MARCH 2008. IN ADDITION TO REPLY DATED 9.11.2011 TH E ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2008. THE DE TAILS OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED ALONG WITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T RULES 1962 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) SOUGHT REMAND REPORT AND ALSO REJOINDER FROM THE ASSESSEE. ON CONSIDERATION OF TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, MORE SPECIFICALLY THE REMAND REPORT FROM TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACTUAL FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ONE UNDISPUTED FACT IS OOZING OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIATED THE AMOUNT WITH THE HELP OF FILING CONFIRMATION, PA N, PROOF OF FILING RETURN, BALANCE SHEET ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTAN TIATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. ITA NO. 152/DEL/2013 KAMLA DEVI GUPTA 3 11,02,000/-. BOTH SHRI TEJPAL SINGH AND DHARAMPAL S INGH, WHO ARE REAL BROTHERS CONFIRMED OF HAVING RECEIPT OF RS. 9,00,00 0/- FOR THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACT WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A). BROADLY WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. SENIOR DR TO THE EXTENT THAT FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM U/S 68 THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS HAS TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIATED HER CLAIM AND DISCHARGE THE ONUS AS R EQUIRED U/S 68 AND 69C OF THE ACT. IT SEEMS THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS AND WITHOUT OFFERING PROPER OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM. WE NO TE THAT WHILE GRANTING RELIEF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE REMAN D REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE REJOINDER AND OTHE R ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE STAND O F THE LD. CIT(A) IS UPHELD. SO FAR AS THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. SE NIOR DR ARE CONCERNED. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAME AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE CASES CITED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE ARE ON DIFFERENT FACTS THUS, MAY NOT HELP THE REVENUE. 4. GROUND NO. 3 IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WAS NOT AR GUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS ALSO DISMISSE D AS NOT PRESSED. 5. FINALLY APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 152/DEL/2013 KAMLA DEVI GUPTA 4 6. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 6.8.2014. SD/- SD/- (S. V. MEHROTRA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7/8/2014 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 6.8.2014 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 6.8.2014 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.