Jasbinder Singh, Karnal V. ITO, Ward-4, Karnal

ITA 2070/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0609 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JASBINDER SINGH ASSESSEE
• Section: 69; 144; 80C; 143(1)

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 2070/Del/2018 Jasbinder Singh Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no. 2070/Del/2018 [Assessment Year: 2009-10] Sh. Jasbinder Singh (Prop.), M/s J.S. Builders, V & PO Khanpur, Tehsil Indri, Karnal. PAN: ASTPS9891C Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-4, Karnal. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Jasbinder Singh (Assessee) Respondent by Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of hearing 01.08.2022 Date of pronouncement 04.08.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of learned CIT(Appeals), Karnal, dated 18.12.2017 pertaining to the assessment year 2009- 10. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “1. That the order of ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and against the facts. 2 ITA no. 2070/Del/2018 Jasbinder Singh Vs. ITO 2. That the ld CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,90,497/- when all the documents stands submitted and the cash deposit relates to previous year. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in law in not allowing rebate of Rs. 100,000/- under section 80-C of the income Tax Act.” 2. The only effective grounds is against sustaining the addition of Rs. 34,90,497/- and not allowing deduction u/s 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 7,75,510/- and agricultural income of Rs. 9,85,000/- for the assessment year under appeal on 30.09.2009. The return so filed was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 29.01.2011. Thereafter the case was selected through computer assisted scrutiny system (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. In response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer no one attended the proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 144 of the Act on 15.12.2011. Thereby he made addition of Rs. 18,49,112/- applying net profit rate at 12% on gross contractual receipts of Rs. 1,54,09,270/-. He further made addition of Rs. 34,90,497/- being the bank deposits u/s 69 and also disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80C of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence, the Assessing Officer assessed total taxable income at Rs. 62,15,120/- against the income declared at Rs. 7,75,510/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal 3 ITA no. 2070/Del/2018 Jasbinder Singh Vs. ITO before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted addition relating to net profit and also the addition made on account of disallowance u/s 80C subject to verification of payment made by the assessee. Aggrieved against this the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing the assessee appeared in person and stated that the authorities below failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and grossly erred in making addition in respect of bank deposits. He submitted that all deposits are explained. He further submitted that the fixed deposit was made out of the maturity amount of other FDRs in earlier years. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition. On this issue he prayed that the impugned addition deserves to be deleted. 5. On the contrary, learned Sr. DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has decided the issue, inter alia, by observing as under: “5.2 Findings:- 4 ITA no. 2070/Del/2018 Jasbinder Singh Vs. ITO The facts on record reveal that even at the level of evidence submitted under Rule 46A, the AO has just rejected the submission stating that additional evidence should be rejected because the assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause nor was he refused at any time during the assessment proceedings from producing the same before the AO. The facts show that since the assessment was completed u/s 144, it is but obvious that the details were not produced them. In the interest of justice, the assessee's submissions should have been examined. The AO added a sum of Rs.34,90,477/- on account of deposits in the SBI of Rs.21,14,003/- and the FDR's of Rs.13,76,494/-. The appellant has submitted detail regarding 2 FDR's of Rs.10,57,349 and Rs.10,57,275/- for which investment was made in the F.Y. 2007-08 (A.Y. 2008-09). However, even at this stage, he has been unable to explain the source of deposits in the SBI of Rs. 21,14,003/- and the FDR's of Rs. 13,76,494/- inspite of specific queries in this regard by my predecessor vide letter dated 09.10.2013, which is reproduced on the next page:- “No. CIT(A)/KNL/2013-14/ Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Karnal. Dated 09.10.2013 To Sh. Jasbinder Singh Prop. M/s J.S. Builders, VPO Khanpur, Distt. Karnal. Sir, Sub:- Furnishing of information – Appeal no. IT/76/KNL/CIT(A)/KNL/2011-12- AY 2009-10-reg:- In the assessment order passed u/s 144, in para 5 of the order, the AO had made addition of Rs. 21,14,003/- on the basis of ITS of the AIR transactions. 2. During the course of appellate proceedings, during the hearing held on 20.12.2012 you submitted a written submission wherein you stated 5 ITA no. 2070/Del/2018 Jasbinder Singh Vs. ITO that the addition of Rs. 13,76,494/- and Rs. 21,10,003/- made by AO in the impugned order, are the investment which were made by you in the year 2007 and, therefore, the same could not be added by AO in the AY 2009- 10. In your reply, you also contended that the addition of Rs. 21,14,003/- made by AO in the impugned order is not based on any deposit made by you in the bank. 3. During the course of appellate proceedings on 11.06.2013, vide order sheet noting, your counsel Mr. Parvesh Sharma was directed to produce the duly certified statement of bank accounts for the FY 2007-08 and 2008-09 by the bank in support of your argument that there were no investment/ deposit made by you during the FY 2008-09 and you were required to furnish the information on 04.07.2013. 4. On 04.07.2013, vide order-sheet noting, you were again required to furnish the FD statement from ICICI Bank, Karnal for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 with a certificate from the bank to furnish all details of the FD’s which were “active” and “closed” during these two financial years. Your case was fixed for hearing on 18.07.2013 5. As you have failed to furnish the aforesaid information till date, you are, hereby, given a final opportunity to submit the following details: (a) Your statement of bank account from State bank of India, Indri, Distt. Karnal for the FY 2007-08 and 2008-09 duly certified by the bank. (b) Your complete statement of all FD’s “active” and “closed” during the FY 2007-08 and 2008-09 from State Bank of India, Indri, Distt. Karnal duly certified by the bank. (c) Your statement of account from ICICI Bank, Karnal for the FY 2007-08 and 2008-09, duly certified by the bank. (d) Your complete statement of all FD’s “active” and “closed” during the FY 2007-08 and 2008-09 from ICICI Bank, Karnal, duly certified by the bank. 6. Please note that this is the final opportunity being given to you. If you fail to furnish the aforesaid information on 05.11.2013, it will be concluded that you have no further information to provide in support of 6 ITA no. 2070/Del/2018 Jasbinder Singh Vs. ITO your written submission filed on 20.12.2012 and 16.01.2013 with reference with the addition of Rs. 13,76,494/- and Rs. 21,14,003/- made by AO u/s 69 of the income Tax Act and the appeal will be finalized based on the information available on the record. Please note that no further request will be entertained for adjournment by this office. Sd/- (Neera Malhotra) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Karnal.” None of the issues have been addressed till date. In the circumstances, I have no option but to confirm the said additions.” 7. The contention of the assessee is that the assessing authority made addition of Rs. 34,90,427/- on account of deposits in the State Bank of India of Rs. 21,14,003/- and Rs. 13,76,494/- respectively. The assessee stated that he had two fixed deposits of Rs. 10,57,349/- and Rs. 10,57,275/-, for which investment was made in the assessment year 2008-09. This contention of the assessee needs verification at the end of the Assessing officer. We, therefore, set aside the issue regarding addition of Rs. 34,90,477/- to the Assessing Officer to decide it afresh, after verifying the contention that F.D.Rs were made out of earlier years deposits. In case the contention of assessee is found to be correct, the Assessing Officer would delete the addition. 8. Apropos claim of deduction u/s 80C, the assessee drew our attention to the certificate dated 21.06.2012 relating to premium paid during the year 2008-09. As 7 ITA no. 2070/Del/2018 Jasbinder Singh Vs. ITO per the certificate the assessee had paid premium of R. 99,396/-. The revenue has not rebutted this certificate issued by the LIC. Therefore, we direct the Assessing officer to allow deduction u/s 80-C of this amount to the assessee. Ground raised in this regard is allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 4 th August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Draft dictated 03.08.2022 Draft placed before author 03.08.2022 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Order signed and pronounced on File comes to P.S. File sent to the Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to the AR Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk Date of dispatch of Order Date of uploading on the website