Jaiwanti Gulia, Rohtak V. ITO, Rohtak

ITA 1595/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82112 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVEENA GUPTA
• Keywords: Salary income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1595/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 JAIWANTI GULIA, VS. ITO, H. NO. 2146, SECTOR-3, WARD 1, ROHTAK. ROHTAK. AEEPG0818G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. NAVEENA GUPTA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. GAURAV DUDEJA, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.01.2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX- (APPEALS) ROHTAK FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW AN D FACTS; 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS. 559235/- BEING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUN T, BY IGNORING ALL THE EXPLANATIONS AND SUBMISSION MADE B Y THE APPELLANT; 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 559235/- BEING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT JO INTLY OWNED BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND AND T HE LD. AO EVEN ADDED THE CASH DEPOSIT ENTRIES PERTAINS TO HER HUSBAND IN HER TOTAL INCOME; 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY THE BOTH PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 1595/D/2013 SMT. JAIWANTI GULIA 2 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY WHICH HAS NOT PROPERLY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND HE D ISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRIN CIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE N ECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION OF EACH AND EVERY CASH DEP OSIT IN ICICI BANK BEFORE THE AO WHICH HAS ALSO NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPR ECIATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSAR Y DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE US IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAG ES 1 TO 63 IN WHICH HE HAS FILED (I) COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFO RE LD. CIT(A), (II) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF ICICI BANK, (III) COPY OF BANK ST ATEMENT OF SBI, (IV) EXPLANATION OF EACH ENTRY OF CASH DEPOSIT IN ICICI BANK, (V) COPY OF COMBINED CASH BOOK OF APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND, (V I) SALARY STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10, (VII) COPY O F BALANCE SHEET OF APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND AS ON 31.3.2008, (VIII) P ROOF OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING OF HUSBAND SH. DILBAG SINGH, (IX) PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING OF SH. KARAN SINGH, FATHER OF HUSBAND AND SH. OM PA RKASH, UNCLE OF HUSBAND, ALONG WITH THEIR CONFIRMATIONS. HE HAS AL SO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND EXPLANATION OF EACH AND EVERY CASH DEPOSIT IN ICICI BANK AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING JOINT ACCOUNT WITH HER HUSBAND SH. DILBAG SINGH. SHE HAS HAVING ONLY SALARY INCOME AND THE OTHER DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS BY HER H USBAND SH. DILBAG SINGH. THE ASSESSE HAS ALSO PRODUCED ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HER VERSION BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITI ES BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THEM. FINALLY HE STATED THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE HAS WRONGLY BEEN MADE IN THE HAND OF ASS ESSEE IN SPITE OF FACT THAT THE ACCOUNTS IN THE BANK ARE JOINT ACCOUNT WIT H HER HUSBAND BUT THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS NOT APPRECIATED TO THE SAME A ND ADDED RS. ITA NO. 1595/D/2013 SMT. JAIWANTI GULIA 3 559235/- U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1962. HE REQUESTE D THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY M AY BE CANCELLED AND APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ACCEPTED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND STATED THAT NO DOUBT THE AS SESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE BUT SHE DEPOSITED HUGE CASH IN THREE BANKS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY HER BEFORE THE R EVENUE AUTHORITY. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE MOST OF THE CASH DEPOSITED BY HER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AS PER LAW AND DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDE R ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE S HAPE OF PB. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYE E AND HAVING THREE BANKS ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: NAME OF THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. STATE BANK OF INDIA, ROHTAK 11075428198(SALARY ACCOUNT) HDFC BANK, ROHTAK 01761000120120702(JOINT NAME WITH SH. DILBAG SINGH) ICICI BANK, ROHTAK 016801509551(JOINT NAME WITH SH. DILBAG SINGH) AS REGARD TO THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, ROHTAK (SUPRA) THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THIS ACCOUNT ARE ONLY FROM SALARY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEP T RS. 50,000/- DEPOSIT BY CASH ON 07/06/2008 AND EXPLANATION REGAR DING THE CASH DEPOSIT ON 07/06/2008 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVE NUE AUTHORITY. BUT AS REGARD TO THE DEPOSIT WITH HDFC AMOUNTING TO RS. 47,030/- THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE ICICI BANK WHICH IS AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1595/D/2013 SMT. JAIWANTI GULIA 4 S.NO. DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT 1. 09.04.2008 8,000/- 2. 06.05.2008 49500/- 3. 06.06.2008 350000/- 4. 24.07.2008 3,50,000/- 5. 16.09.2008 2,00,000/- 6. 20.09.2008 50,000/- 7. 08.10.2008 1,000/- 8. 05.11.2008 30,000/- 9. 05.12.2008 19,000/- 10. 31.12.2008 10,000/- 11. 17.01.2009 1,00,000/- 12. 07.02.2009 8,000/- 13. 10.02.2009 2,000/- 14. 19.02.2009 5,000/- 15. 05.03.2009 14,000/- 16. 09.03.2009 47,000/- 17. 14.03.2009 44,735/- TOTAL 14,59,235/- THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE DEPOSITS OF RS. 9 LA KHS AS UNDER: S.NO. DATE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK AMOUNT SOURCE OF DEPO SITS 1. 06.06.2008 16.07.2008 3,50,000/- 3,50,000/- RS. 1,00,000/- RECEIVED ON 26.05.2008 AS ADVANCE AGAINST SALE AGREEMENT OF PLOT. R. 4,00,000/- RECEIVED ON 06.06.2008 AS ADVANCE AGAINST SALE AGREEMENT OF PLOT. RS. 2,00,000/- AS WITHDRAWAL FROM ICICI BANK ON 07.07.2008. 2. 16.09.2008 2,00,000/- WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 2 LAKH F ROM ICICI BANK ON 18.08.2008. THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS ACCEPTED THE SOURCE OF DE POSIT OF RS. 9 LAKHS AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 559235/- (1459235/- - 9,0 0,000/-) THE AO ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE A CT ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I. SOURCE OF OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 175000/- HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED; II. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ONLY PETTY A MOUNTS WHILE SHE WAS HAVING HUGE AMOUNT AS CASH IN HAND FOR EXAM PLE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED ON RS. 8,000/- ON 09.04.2008 WHILE SHE WAS HAVING CASH IN HAND OF RS. 1,68,000/- AS PER CA SH BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE; III. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 5,000/- THROUGH ATM ON 10.04.2008 WHILE SHE WAS HAVING CASH IN HAND OF RS. 1,60,000/- AS PER CASH BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE; ITA NO. 1595/D/2013 SMT. JAIWANTI GULIA 5 IV. THERE ARE SO MANY SUCH ENTRIES AS APPEARING IN THE CASH BOOK. 6. NO DOUBT THE EXPLANATION IN REGARD TO THE SAID A MOUNT HAS ALSO BEEN CALLED FROM THE ASSESSEE BUT IN RESPONSE TO TH E SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN HER EXPLANATION OF EACH ENTRY OF CASH DEP OSIT IN ICICI BANK WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED IN HER PB AT PAGE 1 4-28. WE HAVE PERUSED THE EXPLANATION OF EACH ENTRY OF THE CASH D EPOSIT IN ICICI BANK WHICH IS THE MAIN DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED EACH AND EVERY ENTRY BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN OUR C ONSIDERED VIEW THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK, ROHTAK IS A JOINT ACCOUNT WITH THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI DILBAG SINGH AND MOST OF THE DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND IN THE ICICI BANK, ROHTAK . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE R EGARDING THE AMOUNT ADDED U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. WE ARE NOT COMMENTIN G UPON THE MERIT OF THE CASE AND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DEPOSIT IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT WITH HER HUSBAND BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO TO APPRECIATE E ACH AND EVERY EVIDENCE ALONG WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE ON THE JOINT ACCOUNT OPEN WITH HER HUSBAND SH. DILBAG SINGH AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/11/2014 SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14/11/2014 *KAVITA, P.S. ITA NO. 1595/D/2013 SMT. JAIWANTI GULIA 6 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR