Ashite Kumar singh, Ghaziapur V. ACIT Central Circle-6, New Delhi

ITA 1592/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3726 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL GULATI
• Assessee Lawyers: VK JINDAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Salary income
• Section: 69; 132; 153A; 201; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.- 1592 TO 1596 /DEL/ 2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 TO 2018-19) SH. ASHIT E KUMAR SINGH, 136, PASSPORT, 1, BUDHANPUR, GAZIPUR, UP-275203 VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI PAN NO. FUQPS5133H APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SH. VK JINDAL, CA REVENUE BY SH. SATPAL GULATI, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 8/6/2021 PRONOUNCEMENT ON 8/6/2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS DATED 20/08/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-24, NE W DELHI (LD. CIT(A)) IN THE CASE OF SH. ASHITE KUMAR SINGH (TH E ASSESSEE), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 TO 2018-19 CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THOSE YEARS, ASSE SSEE PREFERRED THESE 2 APPEALS ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS, AND FOR A SIMILAR REA SON WE FIND IT JUST AND CONVENIENT TO DISPOSE OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDE R. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DERIVES INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY. HE WORKS AS A N ACCOUNTANT IN SUGANDHI SNUFF KING (P) LTD.ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE H IS RETURNS OF INCOME SINCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BELOW THE TAXA BLE LIMIT. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 31.01.2018. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A O F THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS DECLARING INCOME AT RS.1,30, 000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15; RS. 1, 95, 100/-FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2015- 16; RS. 1, 95, 150/-FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ; RS. 1, 65, 420/-FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18; AND RS. 2, 08, 750/-FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 ON VARIOUS DATES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE SALARY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 1.3 LACS, 1.95 LACS, 1.95 LACS, 1. 95 LACS AND 2.6 LACS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 201 7-18 AND 2018-19 RESPECTIVELY WHEREAS THE CASH DEPOSITS FOR THOSE YE ARS RESPECTIVELY WERE RS. 1, 99, 200/-, RS. 5, 59, 360/-, RS. 4, 06, 800/-, RS. 4, 16, 200/- AND RS. 3, 76, 900/-. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, AC CORDINGLY, TREATED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS AND SALA RY INCOME AS THE UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE RES PECTIVE SUMS, NAMELY, RS. 69, 200/-, RS. 3, 64, 360/-, RS. 2, 11, 800/-, 2, 21, 200/-AND RS. 1, 16, 900/-TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR S UCH YEARS, UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH AN ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER, 3 ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BU T THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT WITHOUT BORROWING OR HAVING OPENING CA SH BALANCE, THERE IS NO WAY OF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN THE DEPOSITS AND HIS SALARY INCOME AND WHILE CONSIDERING THE HOU SEHOLD EXPENSES THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKI NG THE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS EQUIVALENT TO THE DIFFERENCE IN TH E DEPOSITED AMOUNT AND THE SALARY EARNINGS OF THE ASSESSEE, CON FIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS. 4. ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, BEFORE US IN THESE APPEA LS CHALLENGING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING AND SUSTA INING THE ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BASING ON THE CONJECTUR ES ON SURMISES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCES WERE AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND THE UNUTILISED PORTIONS THEREOF WERE DEPOSI TED IN THE NEXT YEAR AND THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SH OW THAT NO CASH BALANCE WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED I N SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS. 5. LD. AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE BALANCE SHEE T PREPARED FOR THE YEARS ENDING WITH 31/3/2012, 31/3/2013 AND SO O N AND SO FORTH TO JUSTIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SO MUCH OF CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE END OF EACH YEAR AND DEPEN DING UPON THE NON- UTILISATION OF THE AMOUNTS, CERTAIN AMOUNTS WERE DE POSITED BACK INTO THE ACCOUNTS; WHEREAS, PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS STRANGE FACT AVAILABLE IN THIS CASE IS THAT THERE IS NO MUC H RISE IN THE SALARY OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THERE WAS A GEOMETRICAL RISE IN THE E XPENSES AS WELL AS 4 SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 THE SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE 40% WHEREA S IT WAS NOT SO FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION BASING O N THE EXCESS OF DEPOSITS OVER THE EARNINGS OF THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PLEAD ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME OR ANY OT HER SOURCE FOR SUCH DEPOSITS. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE. IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE BALA NCE SHEET AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES ALSO, THERE WAS A CASH ON HAND TO THE T UNE OF RS. 9, 38, 420/- AS ON 31/3/2012, AND RS. 9, 86, 520/-AS AN 31/3/201 3. INSOFAR AS THIS CASH BALANCES ARE CONCERNED, IT GOES UNDISPUTED THA T FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE SAME WITHOUT RAISING AN EYE BROW AND SUCH CASH ON HAND AS ON 31/3/2012 AND 31/3/2013 REMAINS UNCHALLENGED AND AT TAINED FINALITY. THIS CASH BALANCE AT THE END OF EACH FINANCIAL YEAR OF 2012-13 AND 2013- 14 IS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DE POSITS MADE DURING THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT IN NO YEAR, THE DEPOSITS EXC EED RS. 5.6 LACS. EVEN ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A) THE PERSONAL EXPENSES O F THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THESE YEARS WILL NOT EXCEED RS. 6000/- TO RS. 80 00/-PER MONTH. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD T O SPEND THE CASH ON HAND AVAILABLE AT THE END OF EACH YEAR FOR ANY ENTR EPRENEUR PURPOSES, AND THE CONSISTENT PLEA TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS THA T THE SALARY IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5 7. THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE SUCCESSIVE YEARS CLEAR LY ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD THE CASH ON HAND TO THE TUNE OF RS . 9, 80, 920/-AS ON 31/3/2014; RS. 7, 45, 560/-AS ON 31/3/2015; RS. 4, 46, 260/-AS ON 31/3/2016; RS. 2, 46, 860/-AS ON 31/3/2017 AND RS. 21, 619/-AS ON 31/3/2018. ON THIS CASH BALANCES AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE END OF EACH YEAR, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTENTION OR E VIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, ORDINARILY JUSTIFY THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS AND WHEN THE PURPOSES FRUSTRATED, CERTAIN AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SURMISES THAT IT IS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. WHEN HUGE CASH IS AVAILABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT T HE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 AND 2012-13 AND SUCH CASH BALANCE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, HE CA NNOT SAY THAT NO CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ALLEGED DEP OSITS IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS PROPER AND SATISFA CTORY EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS A ND WHEN THE REVENUE WANTS TO BRING SUCH CASH DEPOSITS TO TAX, T HE BURDEN SQUARELY RESTS WITH THE REVENUE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MA TERIAL IN SUPPORT OF SUCH A PREMISE, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE REASONING OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ADDITION AND FOR THAT MATTER, THE REASONING FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION BY THE LD. CI T(A). LD. CIT(A) WHEN RECORDED THAT WITHOUT BORROWING OR HAVING OPENING C ASH BALANCE, THERE IS NO WAY THE CASH DEPOSITS FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEAR S CAN BE EXPLAINED THROUGH SALARY AND BY THE ASSESSEE, MISSED THE ASPE CT OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING SUFFICIENT OPENING BALANCE FOR THE RESPECTI VE YEARS. WITH THIS 6 VIEW OF THE MATTER WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. WE, ACCORDINGLY, WHILE ALLOWING THESE APPEALS DIREC T THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 8 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARI NG THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (K. NARSIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8/6/2021 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI