AMIT KUMAR SHARMA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 179/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5313 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80G; 68

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U; KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMA R, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 179/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 . SHRI AMIT KUMAR SHARMA, 94-A, SIDDHARTH MARG, GAURI VIHAR VISTAAR, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. BFMPS 2093 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY S BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MALIK (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/03/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING FROM T HE ORDER DATED 03.12.2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y . 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTGAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 11,07,850/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARBITRAR ILY. 1.1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRE CIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH BALAN CE BEFORE MAKING CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK THUS THE ADDITION O F RS. 11,07,850/- AS SUSTAINED DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2 ITA NO. 179/JP/2013 SHRI AMIT KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO 1.2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS ITSELF. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 91,2 36/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS MADE THOUGH CHEQUES IN ICICI BANK ACCOUNT WIT HOUT APPRECIATING THE VALUE OF DEPOSIT THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 91,236/- SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT (A) DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DED UCTION CLAIMED U/S 80-D AT RS. 15,000/- AND U/S 80G OF RS. 18,171/- WH EN THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN LEGITIMATELY MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THUS T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 33,171/- SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT (A) DESERVES TO B E DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE EXPENSES OF RS. 16, 748/- WHICH HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE ASSESSEE WHI LE ISSUING FORM 16, THUS THE SUSTAINING OF RS. 16,748/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A/R FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS ONLY PRESSED GROUND NOS. 1 AND 1.1 AND THE REMAINING GROUNDS HAVE NOT P RESSED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, WE ARE ONLY CONCERN WITH GROUND NO. 1 WHICH DEALS W ITH THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,07,850/- BEING AN ADDITION UPHELD BY LD. CIT (A) OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 21,95,700/-. 3. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THE LETTER FROM BANK THAT THE AIR INFORMATION HAS BEEN SENT TWICE AN D, THEREFORE, THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 21,95,700/- WAS MENTIONED. IN FACT, THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT INTO BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 11,99,086/-, OUT OF WHICH R S. 11,07,850/- WAS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS PER AIR INFORMATION. THE ASSESSEE H AS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 11,07,850/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT STA TING THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS WAS RS. 9,38,180/-. OUT OF THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS, ONE 3 ITA NO. 179/JP/2013 SHRI AMIT KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO BANK ACCOUNT IS OF SALARY ACCOUNT AND THERE IS OTHE R BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK A S PER THE LD. A/R HAS DULY BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND BEFORE US AND HAS PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE DEPOSITS AS THERE IS NO HOUSEHOLD EXPEN SES HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN PASSING THE ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN ADMITTED CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EMPLOYEE O F ICICI BANK AND IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN HIMSELF AS PER HIS DESIGNATION. FOR THAT P URPOSE, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, PETROL EXPENSES, PERSONAL EXPENSES AND ALSO MAKING THE PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD. THOUGH IT IS SUBMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN RS. 3,58,126/- FOR THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES, WHICH IN THE ESTIMATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MODERATE AS THE ASSE SSEE IS A TEETOTALER AND WAS SUFFICIENT TO MEET OUT THE SOCIAL OBLIGATION. IN OU R VIEW, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REASONABLE. IN OUR OPINION, THE AS SESSEE DID NOT WITHDRAW THE AMOUNT FROM ONE BANK AND DEPOSITED THE CASH INTO AN OTHER BANK OR EVEN WITHDREW THE CASH FROM THE SAME BANK AND RE-DEPOSITED THE SA ME AMOUNT IN THE BANK, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WAS WORKING IN THE SAME BANK AND HE IS HAVING BETTER FACILITY AND ACCESS TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH AMOUNT FROM THE BANK. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE DE POSITS OF CASH IN HIS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED AND WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4 ITA NO. 179/JP/2013 SHRI AMIT KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/03/2016. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO YFYR DQEKJ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 31/03/2016 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI AMIT KUMAR SHARMA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 179/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 5 ITA NO. 179/JP/2013 SHRI AMIT KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO