ITO, Rohtak V. Sh. Inder Singh, Rohtak

ITA 2356/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66014 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JM AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. ITA NO: 2356/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : - 2009-10 THE ITO, WARD 2 VS. SH.INDER SINGH ROHTAK H.NO. 808/25, CHINYOT COLONY ROHTAK (APPELLANT) (RESP ONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK D ATED 7.3.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT TO THE PEAK AMOUNT OF RS.10,500/- THEREBY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.23,76,830/- MADE BY ASS ESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH SUSTAINABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN BANK DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITI ES ALLOWED TO HIM; DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. MR.NAVIN GUPTA, ADVOCATE FILED HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY ALONG WITH A PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 28 PAGES. NEITHER T HE ASSESSEE NOR THE REVENUE FILED ANY PETITION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN FAC T NO DEPARTMENTAL ITA NO. 2356/DEL/2012 PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 INDER SINGH, ROHTAK REPRESENTATIVE IS PRESENT IN THE COURT TODAY. UNDE R THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DISPOSE OF THE CASE EX PARTE, ON MERITS. 3. THE FACTS ARE BROUGHT OUT AT PARA 2, PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)S ORDER WHICH IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A CATTLE DEALER , DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,06,830/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TH E SOURCES FOR DEPOSITS OF RS.23,87,330/- IN THE ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK, RO HTAK MAINTAINED BY HIM. IN RESPONSE TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSE E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ALONG WITH DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE THE CONTENTION OF RECEIVING CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM SHRI V IJAY KUMAR BABURAO GHOLA AND SMT.PADMAWATI GAIKWAD ALONG WITH THEIR CO PY OF ITRS, IDENTITY OF PROOF AND COMPLETE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED WITH THE M WITH EXPLANATION. ON THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN THE MATTER AND H E HAS NOT FILED ANY SUSTAINABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OF FICER THEREFORE ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.23,87,330/-. 4. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT PARA 5, APPLYI NG THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN ITA NO.3469/DEL/2010 VID E ORDER DT. 16.11.2010 THE DELHI C BENCH HAD ADOPTED THE PEAK INVESTMENT, INSTEAD OF TOTALING UP ALL THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS ENCLOSED FROM PAGES 26 TO 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AT PARA 6 OF ITS ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS FOLLOWS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT DURIN G THE YEAR THERE WERE SERIES OF DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS IN THE BANK ACCO UNT AND THE MAXIMUM BALANCE AT A PARTICULAR TIME WAS ONLY RS.1,30,000/- . HENCE, LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN THAT AMOUNT AS PEAK CREDIT AND FROM T HERE HE HAS REDUCED ITA NO. 2356/DEL/2012 PAGE 3 OF 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 INDER SINGH, ROHTAK THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIR M THE SAME. 7. AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED THE BINDING DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH DECEMBER,2012. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 10 TH DECEMBER, 2012 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR ON: 3. DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE SECOND MEMBER ON: 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER ON: 5. APPROVED DRAFT CAME TO SR.P.S. ON: 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7. FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK ON : 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GIVEN TO HEAD CLERK ON: 9. DATE OF DISPATCHING THE ORDER ON: