Aditi Bhagat, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-60(4), Delhi

ITA 1992/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0723 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 69A; 191

Judgement Text

1 | Page IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1992/Del/2021 [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Aditi Bhagat, MOD Apartments, Vasundhara Apartment, New Delhi-110096. PAN-AVEPB4430C vs ITO, Ward-60(4), Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 17.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2017- 18 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 28.10.2021. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and law in confirming the addition of Rs.2,88,000 made by Ld. AO as unexplained deposit u/s 69A whereas the fact is that the source of above deposit of Rs. 2,88,000 was out of miscellaneous, festival and ceremonial gifts received during the year under appeal and earlier years and the same was deposited during the demonetization period. Full relief is sought for. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and law not properly considered the explanation given by appellant regarding the source of cash deposit vide written submission dated 06.10.2021, and as such the addition made by the CIT(A) is uncalled for, bad in law, 2 | Page unjustified and against the principle of natural justice and as such the same deserved to be quashed and addition be deleted. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) had failed to apply a more practical aspect in the appellant case and confirmed the addition of Rs.2,88,000, for not producing any documentary evidence for past savings and gifts received. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to understand practically what documentary evidence can a person produce for past savings and miscellaneous gifts received on various ceremonial and festive occasions and as such the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) is uncalled for, bad in law, unjustified and against the principle of natural justice and as such the same deserved to be quashed and addition be deleted. 4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) failed to understand the fact that the appellant does not have any cash income and the cash deposited in bank account was only out of her past savings and gifts received from relatives and friends, further the Ld. CIT(A) had also not shown that the appellant was having any cash income from any source other than saving and gifts received from relatives and friends and as such the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) is uncalled for, bad in law, unjustified and against the principle of natural justice and as such the same deserved to be quashed and addition be deleted. 5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to understand the human nature, more particularly of ladies, to save the money out of withdrawals and ceremonial gifts which is called "stri dhan". The "stri dhan" is never treated as unexplained deposit u/s 69A as has been treated by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Because the amount of Rs. 2,88,000 deposited by the appellant during the demonetization period is very small amount seeing the total financial strength of her family and the only child in parental side as well as maternal parental side from where she use to get the gift in the form of cash by both the family members out of love and affection and as such the confirmation of addition of Rs. 3 | Page 2,88,000 is totally unjustified, bad in law and against the principle of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. 7. Because all the additions and disallowances are specifically challenged in the present appeal. 8. Because the appellant reserve the right to alter, modify or take any additional ground of appeal during the course of hearing of appeal. 9. Because the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 3. It is seen from the records that the present appeal is barred by time. An application seeking condonation of delay is on record. It is stated that the appeal is time barred by 01 day. The reason for not filing the appeal in time was that due to personal exigencies, the assessee went out of town and could not file the appeal in time. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee opposed these submissions. However, looking to submissions of the assessee and in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471, the delay of 01 day is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merit. 4. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the records that there is no representation on behalf of the assessee since 28.03.2022 despite various opportunities were given to the assessee. It is also transpired from the record that the notice sent through speed post is returned back unserved with remark “address is incomplete without mentioning Flat No.” by the Postal Authority. The assessee has not provided any new address to the Registry. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and being disposed off on the basis of material available on record. 4 | Page FACTS OF THE CASE 5. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed her return of income on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.28,570/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer [“AO”] vide order dated 31.01.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 191 [“the Act”]. Thereby, the AO made addition of Rs.2,88,000/- on account of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. [ 6. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee had contended that the assessee has been serving with M/s. Groupon India Pvt. Ltd. and Ernst and Young LLP and alongwith her job, she started dealing in shares and securities for the last several years from her residence before the lower authorities. It was contended that the assessee provided sufficient information and documentary evidences of business activities and her capital account etc. The AO made addition on account of cash deposited by the assessee amounting to Rs.2,88,000/- in the bank account between 17.11.2016 and 29.12.2016. It is stated that the assessee belonged to high net worth family which is evident from her capital account. It was stated that out of Rs.2,88,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- was in old currency in the demonetization of Rs.500 and Rs.1,000/-. It was also stated 5 | Page before the authorities below that the assessee had received gift from her mother. However, the authorities below did not consider the contention of the assessee and edit the cash deposited into bank account of the assessee. 9. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the onus was upon the assessee to prove the source of cash deposited in her bank account. 10. I have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that right from the beginning, the contention of the assessee was that the amount was received in the form of gift and the authorities below have not made any inquiry in this regard. Looking to the totality of the facts and material placed before me, I am of the considered view that the impugned addition is unjustified on account of the fact that the assessee was having sufficient sources to save the small amount out of the gifts and the income received by her. Hence, the impugned addition is hereby, deleted. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31 st August, 2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI