Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2233/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6692 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R B ARORA
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2233/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SANJEEV KUMAR, ]C/O R.B. ARORA & CO., DSM-127, DLF TOWERS, SHIVAJI MARG, MOTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. PAN: ABLPK8367Q VS. ITO, WARD 33(3), , NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.B. ARORA, FCA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ANIL SHARMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .11.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 14.03.2016 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,77,000/- AND RS.50 ,000/-. ITA NO.2233/DEL/2016 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,00,220/-. SEVERAL N OTICES WERE ISSUED, BUT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO. FI NALLY, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 144 WAS GIVEN TO THE INSPECTOR FOR SERVI CE, WHICH WAS AFFIXED ON THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AS SESSEE PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCEEDINGS, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.13,55,5 50/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S INDIA BULLS SECURITIES LTD. AND OF RS.24,79,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS WITH PUN JAB NATIONAL BANK. DURING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSEE FURNISHED SOME EVIDENCE WHICH WAS SENT BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO T HE AO, WHO, IN TURN, SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE MATERIAL INCLUDING THE REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A TRANSACTION OF RS.50,000/- WITH INDIA BULLS SECURIT IES LTD. AS AGAINST ORIGINALLY CONSIDERED BY THE AO AT RS.13.55 LAC AND FURTHER THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS ON 26.10.2007 AT RS.8,14,000/- AND ON 29.01.2008 AT RS.5.63 LAC TOTALING TO RS.13.77 LAC AS AGAINST ORI GINALLY NOTED BY THE AO AT RS.24.79 LAC. HE, THEREFORE, RESTRICTED THE ADD ITIONS TO THESE LEVELS. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THESE ADDITIONS. ITA NO.2233/DEL/2016 3 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF R S.50,000/- IS CONCERNED, IT IS EMANATING FROM THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT PAYMENTS OF RS.30,000/- AND RS.20,000/- WERE MADE O N 15.12.2006 TO INDIA BULLS SECURITIES LTD. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION IS 2008-09. THUS, IT BECOMES MANIFEST THAT THE DEPOSI TS WITH INDIA BULLS SECURITIES LTD., FOR THE ADDITION SUSTAINED, WERE M ADE IN AN EARLIER YEAR. AS SUCH, THIS ADDITION CANNOT BE COUNTENANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SAME IS ORDERED TO BE DEL ETED. 5. THE OTHER ADDITION IS OF RS.13.77 LAC REPRESENTS THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI. THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN TWO TRENCHES, NAMELY RS.8.1 4 LAC ON 26.10.2007 AND RS.5.63 LAC ON 29.01.2008. THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT HIS FATHER WAS AN AGRICULTURIST HAVING HUGE LAND WH O WAS MURDERED IN JUNE, 2004 AND THESE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK EMANATED FROM THE RECOVERIES MADE FROM THE BORROWERS OF HIS FATHER FOR THE AMOUN TS ADVANCED DURING HIS LIFE TIME. THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 29 .08.2014 HAS RECORDED THAT THE WILL OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER IS DATED 16.3.2004 WHICH ITA NO.2233/DEL/2016 4 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE SOLE HEIR TO THE A SSETS OF THE EXECUTOR AND THE SAME WAS EXECUTED FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE DE ATH OF THE EXECUTANTS. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN RECORDED THAT THE S TAMP PAPERS ON WHICH CONFIRMATIONS WERE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TH E ALLEGED BORROWERS OF HIS FATHER WERE PURCHASED ON 28.7.2004, THAT IS, AFTER HIS DEATH. THERE IS A COMPLETE MISMATCH BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES VERSI ON AND THE ACTUAL FACTS. I AM, FURTHER, UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION FOR THE REASON THAT HIS FATHERS DEATH TOOK PLACE IN 2004 AND THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT IN OC TOBER, 2007/JANUARY, 2008. IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO HOW ALL OF A S UDDEN THE ASSESSEE RECOVERED A SUM OF RS.13.77 LAC FROM SOME ALLEGED B ORROWERS OF HIS LATE FATHER AFTER A GAP OF AROUND FOUR YEARS. NO EVIDEN CE APART FROM THIS BALD ASSERTION HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. UNDER THESE C IRCUMSTANCES, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GEN UINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UPHELD TO THIS EXTENT. THIS GROUND FAILS. ITA NO.2233/DEL/2016 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.11.20 16. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 15.11.2016. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.