ITO, New Delhi V. Shri Ved Prakash Yadav, New Delhi

ITA 2079/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91336 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P CHANDREKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHILPI DIWAN
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 2079 /DEL/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. VED PRAKASH YADAV, WARD - 25(4), NEW DELHI C/O - SH. BHAGWATI PRASAD, 111, HANS BHAWAN, 1, BA HADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAEPY1270A ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. J.P. CHANDREKAR, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY: MS. SHILPI DIWAN , CA DATE OF HEARING: 30.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.07.2015 ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), DATED 21.02.2013 RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,02,500/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. II. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. III. ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE CONTRAVENTION TO RULE 46 - A. IV. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ON 30 TH MARCH, 2010 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,88,480/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SE LECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) VIDE ORDER DATED 26.12.2011 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 36,10,760/ - AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 31,02,500/ - AS UNEXPLAINE D CASH DEPOSIT IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,000/ - UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 2,08,000/ - . BEING AGGRIEVED, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEF ORE THE CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2013 ALLOWED THE APPEAL. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE MADE OUT OF THE SALE OF PLOTS. THE CIT(A) RECORDED HIS FINDINGS VIDE PARAS 3 AND 4 (PAGES 2 TO 4), WHI CH READ AS UNDER : 3. WITH REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,02,500 / - BEING CASH DEPOSITED IN THE SB ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT IN STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ANDHRA BANK RESPECTIVELY, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, T WO PLOTS OF LAND HELD BY HIS FAMILY WERE SOLD BY HIM UNDER GP A AGREEMENT. ONE OF THE PLOTS BEARING PLOT NO. 11 (375 SQUARE YARDS), KHASRA NO. 47/ 12, VILLAGE HAIBAT PURA, ABADI GOPAL NAGAR, NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI - 110 043 WAS SOLD BY HIM TO SH . KRISHAN KUMAR , S/O S H. PRABHU SINGH, R/ O. RZ - 4, GOPAL NAGAR, NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI - 110 043 FOR A SUM OF RS.19 LACS ON 07.10.2008 AND THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IN CASH. THE SECOND PLOT BEARING PLOT NO. 22 (162 SQ YARDS) KHASRA NO. 17/2, VILLAGE HAIBAT PURA, ABADI G OPAL NAGAR, NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI - 110 043 WAS SOLD BY HIM TO SH . RAMANAND, S/O. LATE SH. MALKHAN, R/ O. VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KHAIRA, NEW DELHI - 110 043 FOR A SUM OF RS.9.75 LAKHS ON 04.12.2008 AND THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IN CASH. NECESSARY DOCUME NTS PERTAINING TO BOTH THE PLOTS' HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ID. AR SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY MS. SHILPI DEWAN, CA DT. 20.09.2011 ADDRESSED TO THE AO I.E. ITO WARD 3 25(4), NEW DELHI, WHEREIN, ALL THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO. IT WAS FURTHER INFORMED TO THE AO THAT THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT SMT. KAMLESH YADAV HAD GIVEN A SUM OF RS. L,50,000/ - TO HER HUSBAND FOR INVESTMENT IN HIS BUSINESS. SMT. KAMLESH YADAV IS A SEPARATE ASSESSEE AND COPY OF HER ITR ALONG WITH BALANCE SHEET WAS SUBMITTED TO THE AO AS EVIDENCE. THE ID. AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THESE WERE THE CASH AMOUNTS WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND WHICH WERE ADDED BACK BY THE AO BY MAKI NG ADDITIONS OF RS.31,02,5001 - AND RS.1 LAC, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ID. AR AND THE EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD BY HIM. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO SALE OF T WO PLOTS OF LAND IN VILLAGE HAIBAT PURA, NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI - 110 043 AND THE CONSEQUENT AVAILABILITY OF CASH TO THE APPELLANT TO T HE TUNE OF RS.19 LACS + RS.9. 7 5 LACS AND ALSO THE ADVANCE OF RS. L,50,0001 - IN CASH GIVEN TO HIM BY SMT. KAMLESH YADAV, TH E ADDITION OF RS.31 ,02,5001 - AND RS. 1 LAC, DO NOT APPEAR JUSTIFIED. THESE ADDITIONS ARE THEREFORE DELETED. 4. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,08,0001 - TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS, THE ID. AR SUBMITTED THAT TH E APPELLANT W AS LIVING IN A JOINT FAMILY. HIS WIFE MRS. KAMLESH YADAV, WHO WAS A SEPARATE INCOME TAX ASSESSEE , WITHDREW RS.65,000/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. THE ID. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ELDER SON OF THE APPELL ANT, WHO WAS OF 21 YEARS OF AGE AND WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROPERTY DEALING, WAS ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO THE FAMILY FINANCES. LASTLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT SH. BAHADUR SINGH YADAV WAS EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM 3 ACRE S OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN DELHI AND 4 ACRES OF LAND IN HARYANA. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE ID. AR, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ADDITION OF RS.2,08,000/ - BY ESTIMATING THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.3 LACS IS TOT ALLY UNJUSTIFIED AS IT IS PURE GUESS WORK AND THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE DELETED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SALE OF PLOTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, NO ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THUS, THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES, 1962 , IS UNACCEPTABLE AND THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN 4 CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 7 T H JULY , 2015. S D / - S D / - ( I.C. SUDHIR ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 7 T H JULY , 2015. RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI