Harpreet Singh Bagga, Burnpur V. ITO, Ward-1(2), Asansol, Asansol

ITA 1590/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 159023514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K L KANAK
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Peak credit

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 1590 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 4 - 20 0 5 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1590 / KOL / 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 4 - 20 0 5 HARPREET SINGH BAGGA,........................... ................... .. .. .APP ELL ANT JANA TA ROAD, NARSINGBANDH, P.O. BURNPUR - 713 325 [ PAN : A HIPB 4707 C ] - VS. - INCOME TAX OFFICER, ...............................................................RESPONDENT WARD - 1 ( 2 ), ASANSOL APPEARANCES BY: N O N E , FOR THE ASSESSEE S HRI K.L. KANAK , J CIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 2 4 , 2 01 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 2 4 , 201 5 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , ASANSOL IN APPEAL NO. 152 / CIT(A) /ASL/W - 1(2)/ASL/06 - 07 D ATED 26 . 0 5 .201 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4 - 0 5 . 2. NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND S HRI K.L. KANAK, JCIT, SR. D.R. REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3 . AT THE TIM E OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. SR. D.R. THAT GROUND NO. (A) OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL WAS AGAI N ST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF A SUM OF RS.1,77,000/ - REPRESENTING THE PEAK CREDIT O F THE DEPOSIT ED AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 30965 WITH BANK OF INDIA, BURNPUR. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED T O BE DOING GROCERY BUSINESS. HOWEVER, NO I.T.A. NO . 1590 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 4 - 20 0 5 PAGE 2 OF 3 EVIDENCE OF THE SAME HAD BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE S GRANDMOTHER SAYING THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS A JOINT BANK ACCO UNT WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE GRANDMOTHER AND DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BELONGED TO THE GRANDMOTHER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 4. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION BY THE LD. SR. D.R. THAT GROUND NO. (B) WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,000/ - REPRESENTING LOW DRAWINGS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LD. SR. D.R. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE AT RS.55,000/ - AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWING ONLY RS.4 5 ,000/ - . THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.10,000/ - WAS ADDED. LD. SR. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE S GRANDMOTHER WHO WAS ALSO THE JOINT - HOLDER OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE S GRANDMOTHER HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT BELONGS TO HER AND THAT SHE HAS OFFERED INTERE ST INCOME IN HER HANDS. ONCE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE S GRANDMOTHER S MT. KRISHNA DEVI SINGH HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THAT SHE HAS FULLY REPORTED THE INTEREST INCOME FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT THEN SUCH BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE THE UNDISCLOSED OR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHOWS THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT IS JO INTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS GRANDMOTHER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW I.T.A. NO . 1590 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 4 - 20 0 5 PAGE 3 OF 3 THAT THE ADDITION OF THE PEAK CREDIT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 6. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF LOW DRAWINGS, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BUSINESS AND NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. FURTHER INSPECTO R S REPORT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BACHELOR AND IS LIVING WITH HIS PARENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT AS TO HOW HE HAS ARRIVED AT THE AMOUNT OF RS.55,000/ - AS BEING THE REQUIRED DRAWINGS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW DRAWINGS CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) STANDS DELETED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSEESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 4 TH FEBRUARY , 201 5 . SD/ - GEORGE MATHAN ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 2 4 TH D AY OF FEBRUARY , 201 5 COPIES TO : (1) HARPR EET SINGH BAGGA, JANATA ROAD, NARSINGBANDH, P.O. BURNPUR - 713 325 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), ASANSOL (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B ENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S .