Sunanda Sanjay Chandaliya, Aurangabad V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Aurangabad

ITA 1967/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6923 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARISES OUT OF PASSED
• Section: 201; 6; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT . / ITA NO.1967/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SUNANDA SANJAY CHANDALIYA, A/P. LASUR STATION, TALUKA GANGAPUR, AURANGABAD PAN : AEYPC3599N VS. ITO, WARD-1(3), AURANABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE CIT(A)-1, AURANGABAD ON 05-10-2018 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ON MERITS IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.14,84,500/- IN RESPECT OF CA SH DEPOSITS IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. APPELLANT BY MRS. DEEPA KHARE RESPONDENT BY SHRI M.K.VERMA DATE OF HEARING 01-05-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02-05-2019 ITA NO.1967/PUN/2018 SUNANDA S. CHANDALIYA 2 3. SUCCINCTLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED HER RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.84,150/- AND AGRICU LTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,43,017/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) O BSERVED THAT A SUM OF RS.14,84,500/- WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSES SEE IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH DEOGIRI NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF TH E DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CASH OF THIS MAGNITUDE W AS DEPOSITED OUT OF CLOSING CASH IN HAND OF THE PRECEDING YE AR WHICH WAS MADE OUT FROM PREMATURE ENCASHMENT OF FIXED DEPOSITS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE FUR NISHED COPIES OF BALANCE SHEETS AS ON 31-03-2006, 31-03-2007, 31-03- 2008, 31-03-2009 AND 31.3.2010 AND CLAIMED THAT CASH BALANCE OF RS.18,33,155/- WAS AVAILABLE IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR TH E PRECEDING YEAR. THE AO REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT SHE ENCASHED FDRS AND KEPT THE AMOUNT IN HER HOME TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AFTER 24 MONTHS COULD N OT BE ACCEPTED. HE, THEREFORE, MADE AN ADDITION FOR A SUM OF RS.14,84,500/-, WHICH GOT CONFIRMED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. ITA NO.1967/PUN/2018 SUNANDA S. CHANDALIYA 3 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVA NT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGULAR INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE. A COPY OF HER INCOME-TAX RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER B OOK. THIS RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING, INTER ALIA, INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.1,46,904/- ON FDRS WITH BANKS. FURTHER, THERE IS A BALAN CE SHEET DRAWN AS ON 31-03-2006 IN WHICH FDRS OF DIFFERENT AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN, TOTAL OF WHICH IS MORE THAN RS.1 5.00 LAKH. SHE FURNISHED HER RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 SHO WING INTER ALIA, INTEREST INCOME FROM FDRS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,60,812/-. THIS RETURN WAS ALSO ACCOMPANIED BY BALA NCE SHEET SHOWING FDRS WITH STILL A LARGER AMOUNT. SIMILARLY FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING, INTER ALIA, INTEREST INCOME FROM FDRS AT RS.1,80,291/-. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSE E GOT THE FDRS ENCASHED AND THE AMOUNT WAS DECLARED AS CASH IN HAND WITH CLOSING CASH IN HAND STANDING AT RS.17,72,617/-. A COPY OF HER RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 HAS BEEN PLACE D AT PAGE 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE ACCOMPANYING BALANCE SHEE T, CASH IN HAND OF RS.18,33,155/- HAS BEEN SHOWN. IT IS THIS C ASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH HER AS ON 31-03-2009, OUT OF WHICH SHE DEP OSITED ITA NO.1967/PUN/2018 SUNANDA S. CHANDALIYA 4 A SUM OF RS.14,84,500/- IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WHIC H HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY THE AO IN HER TOTAL INCOME. I FAIL TO COMPREHEND AS TO HOW ANY SUCH ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE, MORE SO WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED RETURNS FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS ACCOMPANIED BY BALANCE SHEETS. SINCE CA SH IN HAND WAS ADMITTEDLY AVAILABLE AS PER HER BALANCE SHEET AS O N 31- 03-2009 AT RS.18.33 LAKH, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE DEPOSITED RS.14.84 LAKH IN HER BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF SUCH CASH IN HAND, CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. IT IS FURTHER RELEVANT TO NOT E THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH IN THE BALANCE SHEET IS NOT WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS INVESTING IN FDRS FROM TIME TO TIME IN EARLIER YEARS AND ALSO REGULARLY SHOWING THE INTEREST INCOME THEREON IN HER INCOME-TAX RETURNS. IT WAS BECAUSE OF ENCASHMENT OF SUCH FDRS THAT SHE REALIZED THE AMOUNT AND KEPT THE SAME WITH HER IN THE FORM OF CASH AND THEN DEPOSITED IT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE VIEW POINT OF THE AO IN NOT ACCEPTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASH WAS ALLEGEDLY KEPT IN HAND FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW IS NOT TENABLE. ONCE A PARTICULAR AMOUNT HAS SEEN THE LIGHT OF THE DAY, ITS LATER UTILIZATION HAS TO BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS PROVED BY THE REVENU E ITA NO.1967/PUN/2018 SUNANDA S. CHANDALIYA 5 THAT SUCH AMOUNT WAS SPENT ELSEWHERE. THE HONBLE KERAL A HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. K. SREEDHARAN (1993) 201 ITR 1010 (KERALA) HAS HELD THAT : `THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS BETWEEN 1976- 77 AND 1980-81 IS NOT SO LONG A PERIOD AS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION REGARDING THE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF THE AMOUNT. 5. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY FILING RETURNS AND BALANCE SHEETS O N YEAR TO YEAR BASIS. THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND FROM MATURITY OF FDRS IN PAST AND RE-DEPOSITING OF PROCEEDS IN THE BANK ACC OUNT IN THE INSTANT YEAR, CANNOT BE DOUBTED AS THE FACTUM OF MATUR ITY OF FDRS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO. WHEN THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE HAS ACCEPTED THE AVAILABILITY OF UNUTILIZED CASH FOR FOUR YEARS AS REASONABLE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT SUCH AVAILABILITY FOR TWO YEARS IN THE INS TANT CASE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ADDITION WAS WRONGLY SUSTAINED. I, THEREFORE, ORDER TO DELE TE THE ADDITION. 6. GROUND NO.1 CHALLENGING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. ITA NO.1967/PUN/2018 SUNANDA S. CHANDALIYA 6 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND MAY, 2019. SD/- (R.S.SYAL) / VICE PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 02 ND MAY, 2019 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS)-1, AURANGABAD 4. THE PR. CIT-1, AURANGABAD 5. , , SMC / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE ITA NO.1967/PUN/2018 SUNANDA S. CHANDALIYA 7 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 01-05-2019 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 01-05-2019 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *