SANDEEP BHANDARI, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 216/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 21623114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES SMC, JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 216/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SANDEEP BHANDARI, 211, ANUKAMPA-II, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABSPB 6722 F VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/11/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/11/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/01/2015 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR FOR A.Y . 2006-07 SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8.20 LACS. 2. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE BOT H THE PARTIES, CONSIDERED THE SAME AND GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES ITA 216/JP/2015_ SANDEEP BHANDARI VS ITO 2 BELOW, I NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED YEAR WISE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF HIS FATHER FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS T AKEN A SUM OF RS. 6.75 LACS FOR MAKING DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN EACH YEAR. THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SALARY INCOME AS WELL AS THE PF ADV ANCE AND HE HAS SHOWN THE PERSONAL EXPENSES ALSO. THE SAID CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- F.Y. SALARY RECEIPTS PF ADVANCES PERSONAL EXPENSES BALANCE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. 1999-2000 APRIL, 1999 SEPT, 1999 FEB., 2000 RS. 1,25,700 RS. 50,000 RS. 50,000 RS. 50,000 RS. 96,000 RS. 1,79,700 2000-01 JULY, 2000 NOV., 2000 RS. 1,44,160 RS. 50,000 RS. 45,000 RS. 1,08,000 RS. 3,10,860 2001-02 APRIL, 2001 DEC.,2001 RS. 1,57,017 RS. 40,000 RS. 50,000 RS. 1,20,000 RS. 4,37,877 2002-03 APRIL, 02 SEPT., 02 RS. 1,72,586 RS. 40,000 RS. 35,000 RS. 1,32,000 RS. 5,53,463 2003-04 APRIL, 03 SEPT., 03 RS. 1,89,569 RS. 40,000 RS. 40,000 FEB., 04 RS. 40,000 RS. 1,44,000 RS. 7,19,032 2004-05 SEPT.,04 JAN.,05 RS. 2,14,360 RS. 50,000 RS. 45,000 RS. 1,56,000 RS. 8,72,392 2005-06 JULY, 05 DEC., 05 RS. 2,33,766 RS. 50,000 RS. 50,000 RS. 1,68,000 RS. 6,75,000 RS. 3,63,158 ITA 216/JP/2015_ SANDEEP BHANDARI VS ITO 3 DEPOSITS IN BANKS ON THE BASIS OF THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT, IT IS APPA RENT THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE CASH IN HAND AT RS. 6.75 LAC S, WHICH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED FOR MAKING ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE S ALARY OF ASSESSEES FATHER VARY FROM RS. 1.25 LACS TO RS. 2.33 LACS. THE PERSONAL EXPENSES AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SUFFICIENT TO COVER UP THE PROVIDENT FUND ADVANCES, IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NO RESTRICTION UN DER THE LAW THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER CANNOT HAVE CASH IN HAND TO THE E XTENT OF RS. 6.75 LACS WHEN SPECIALLY HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY BANK ACCOUNT. A FATHER OF HIS SON IS ALSO MORALLY BOUND TO HELP THE SON WHENEVER THE SON IS IN NEED OF THE FINANCIAL HELP. I, THEREFORE, TREAT THE SUM OF RS. 6.75 LACS IN RESPECT OF WHICH, IN MY OPINION, THE SOURCES DULY EXPLAINED. 3. SO FAR THE SUM OF RS. 1.50 LACS IS CONCERNED, I NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THE SAID SUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CHEQUE FROM ONE SHRI RAKESH SABARWAL BUT IN FACT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN CA SH ON 05/01/2006. THIS FACT IS APPARENT FROM THE SCANNED COPY OF BANK STAT EMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 11 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THIS ITA 216/JP/2015_ SANDEEP BHANDARI VS ITO 4 FACT, I CANNOT ACCEPT THE SOURCE OF RS. 1.50 LACS, I THEREFORE, REDUCED THE ADDITION OF RS. 8.20 LACS TO RS. 1.50 LACS. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/11/2015. SD/- IH-DS-CALY (P.K. BANSAL) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 06 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SANDEEP BHANDARI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 216/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR