Smt. Sameeta Rajora, Bhopal V. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 172/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70023 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Gift; Source of fund; Validity of assessment
• Section: 153A; 147; 148; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : ABTPR3865Q I.T.A.NO. 172 /IND/201 3 A.Y. : 2002-03 SMT.SAMEETA RAJORA, C/O RAJESH RAJORA, MEMBER, REVENUE BOARD, MOTI MAHAL, GWALIOR VS. ASSISTANT CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUMIT NEMA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 24 . 0 7 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 . 0 9 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), DATED 7.3.2013 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-03 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/14 7 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 IN THE -: 2: - 2 MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961. 2. FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 147/143(3) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LEGAL, VALID AND TENABLE IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 29,100/- WERE NOT EXPLAINABLE AND IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,100/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERUSED. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSE E, SMT.SAMEETA RAJORA IS AN IFS OFFICER. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI RAJESH RAJORA A ND THE ASSESSEE ON 31.05.2008. ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMA TION OBTAINED IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 15 3A, THE -: 3: - 3 ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNE XPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IN HER BANK ACCOUNT OF STATE BANK OF I NDORE, DHAR, AND STATE BANK OF INDORE, BALAGHAT AND, ACCOR DINGLY, HE OPENED THE CASE FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR BY ISSUING NO TICE U/S 148. WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3)/147, THE A SSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS. 29,100/- IN ASSESSEES INCOME ON THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT MADE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED TO THE CIT(A), WHO DISMISSED ASSESSEES APPEAL BOTH ON THE LEGAL GROUND OF REOPE NING U/S 147 AS WELL AS ON MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED WRIT TEN REPLY, WHEREIN FACTS REGARDING EXPLANATION OFFERED DURING THE POST SEARCH INQUIRY HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. AS PER LD. AUTHO RIZED -: 4: - 4 REPRESENTATIVE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADD ITION OF RS. 29,100/-, WHICH IS BELOW RS. 1 LAKH, THEREFORE, REO PENING BEYOND A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS WAS NOT VALID. OUR ATTEN TION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DETAILED EXPLANATION FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING CASH DEPOSITED IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT IN EACH AND EVERY MONTH ALONGWITH THE SOURC E OF DEPOSIT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SENIOR DR CONTENDED THAT THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 148 WERE FOUND PRESEN T IN THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT REOPENED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. WITH REGARD TO MERIT OF ADDITION, THE LD. SENIOR DR CONTENDED THAT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 29,100/- DEPOSI TED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, COULD NOT BE EXPLAINE D, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN M AKING ADDITION OF RS. 29,100/-. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D FOUND FROM RECORD THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT U/ S 153A BANK BOOK WAS FOUND, WHEREIN CASH WAS FOUND TO BE D EPOSITED -: 5: - 5 BY THE ASSESSEE IN VARIOUS MONTHS FALLING IN THE AS SESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSM ENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WAS REOPENED BY ISSUE OF NO TICE U/S 148. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH REFERENCE TO THE SOURCE OF FUNDS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 27,500/- DEPOSITED IN THE MONTH O F JULY, 2001, OUT OF RS. 41,500/- DEPOSITED BY ASSESSEE. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED ONLY RS. 14,000/- OUT OF SALARY OF RS. 20,000/- RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, IN TH E MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2001, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN DEPOSIT OF R S. 11,600/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF WHICH THE ASSES SING OFFICER ACCEPTED RS. 10,000/- AS OUT OF SALARY SAVI NG AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 1600/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. T HUS, AN ADDITION OF RS. 29,100/- ( RS. 27,500/- + RS. 1600/ - ) WAS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD, WE FO UND THAT IN THE MONTH OF JULY 2001, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSIT ED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 41,500/- SOURCE OF WHICH WAS EXPLAINE D BY THE -: 6: - 6 ASSESSEE AS OUT OF HER SALARY OF RS. 20,000/- AND G IFT RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER AMOUNTING TO RS. 25000/-. THE ASSES SING OFFICER ACCEPTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 14000/- AS SAVING OUT OF SALARY BUT DID NOT ACCEPT THE AMOUNT OF GIFT RECEIV ED FROM HER FATHER. LOOKING TO THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND F INANCIAL POSITION OF HER FATHER, A GIFT OF RS. 25,000/- AS R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR N OT ACCEPTING THE GIFT OF RS. 25,000/- RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER. GIFT WAS GENUINELY RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER WHICH WAS UTILIZ ED BY HER FOR DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THUS, OUT OF SALAR Y OF RS. 20,000/- AND GIFT OF RS. 25,000/-, DEPOSIT OF RS. 4 1,500/- WAS FULLY EXPLAINED. SIMILARLY, IN THE MONTH OF 2001, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 11,600/-, OUT OF WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED RS. 10,000/- AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 160 0/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE RECOR D, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALARY OF RS. 14,090/- AND WAS ALSO HAVING PAST SAVING FROM SALARY. ACCORD INGLY, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 11,60 0/-. -: 7: - 7 ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDI TION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITION BY RS. 29,100/- ( RS. 27,500/ - + RS. 1600/-) MADE IN ASSESSEES INCOME. AS WE HAVE ALREA DY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSEES INCOME, WE ARE NOT GOING IN THE LEGAL PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF REOPENING, WHEN THE INCOME ESCAPED WAS ONLY RS. 29,100/- AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2013. CPU* 29308.2.9