ITO, Rohtak V. Shri Vijay Malhotra, Rohtak

ITA 2488/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5480 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2488/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2488/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ROHTAK VS. SH. VIJAY MALHOTRA, 435/26, JAWAHAR NAGAR, ROHTAK (PAN: AICPM4872A) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SAMEER SHARMA, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK D ATED 14.3.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,95,490/- OUT OF RS. 15,16,100/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK. 3. IN THIS CASE THE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN JOB WORK OF JEWELLERY. AO NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSE SSEE IS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 15,16,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS. AO NOTED THAT NO EXPLANATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. HENCE, THE AO ADDED A SUM OF RS. 15, 16,100/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 2488/DEL/2011 2 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ADDITIO NAL DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES. THE SAME WERE DULY FORWARDED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REMAND REPORT WAS OBT AINED. LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE CONTENTION THAT RS. 7.50 LAC RECEI VED REPRESENTED RECEIPT FROM CUSTOMERS AND THESE WERE SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS. LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AO. REGARDING THE REST OF THE ADDITION, ASSESSEES EXP LANATION WAS THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS WITH THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A JEWELLER AND RS. 7,07,400/- REPRESENTED RECEIPT FROM HIM. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RS. 58,700/- REPRESENTED ROTATION IN BUSINESS TRANSACTION. WITH REGARD TO THESE DEPOSITS THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THEY HAD BEEN RE CEIVED FROM HIS FATHER ON ACCOUNT OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF GOLD, THO UGH PLAUSIBLE, HAS NOT BEEN FULLY AND PROPERLY SUBSTANTIATED BY E VIDENCE. HENCE, LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IF THE PEAK CRED IT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS. 3,20,610/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. ACCO RDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,20,61 0/-. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR. NONE APPEARED ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE APPEAL CAN BE DISPOSED OFF BY HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THERE ARE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,16 ,100/-. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE JOB WORK OF JEWELLERY. ASSESSEES EXPLANATION HAS BEEN THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS R ECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS. IN THIS REGARD, FOR PART OF THE AMO UNT, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED PROPER EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS, L D. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE PEAK CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS. 3,2 6,610/- SHOULD BE ITA NO. 2488/DEL/2011 3 ADDED AS INCOME AND BROUGHT TO TAX. IN OUR CONSIDE RED OPINION, LD. CIT(A)S DECISION IS FAIR AND PROPER. IN OUR CONSI DERED OPINION, IT DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. ACCORD INGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/1/2014. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 30/1/2014 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 2488/DEL/2011 4