COL SUMANDEEP SINGH PHOGAT, BAREILLY CANNT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD - 4(2) , PUNE , PUNE

ITA 255/PUN/2020

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Col. Sumandeep Singh Phogat against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Pune, which upheld the addition of Rs.21,45,000 to the appellant's income for the assessment year 2009-10. The addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Pune, citing unexplained cash deposits in the appellant's bank account. The appellant contended that these deposits were from a cash gift received from his father, supported by additional evidences such as a memorandum of gift and a declaration from his father. However, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rejected this explanation. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the evidence and the circumstances, concluded that the explanation was plausible and directed the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137513 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 69; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.255/PUN/2020 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Col. Sumandeep Singh Phogat, Bungalow No.8, P.B. Marg, Shaheed Chowk, Bareilly, Cantt.- 243001. PAN : ALVPP9943P Vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 30.10.2019 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “salary”. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 13.08.2009 declaring total income of Rs.5,08,206/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 26.12.2022 Date of pronouncement : 28.12.2022 ITA No.255/PUN/2020 2 Ward-4(2), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 30.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.28,08,060/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.21,45,000/- being the cash deposits made in the bank account rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of cash gift received from his father. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant filed additional evidences in the form of copy of agreement to sell dated 09.06.2008, copy of memorandum of gift, copy of declaration received from his father dated 04.08.2012. The ld. CIT(A) after calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer on the said additional evidence, had rejected the explanation offered by the appellant by holding that the appellant had failed to substantiate the source of cash gift made by the father of the appellant. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. ITA No.255/PUN/2020 3 6. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the addition of cash deposits made in the bank account as unexplained u/s 69 of the Act. The provisions of section 69 of the Act provides that where an assessee offered an explanation regarding the source of investments and such explanation is found to be not satisfactorily, the Assessing Officer has discretion to treat or not treat such investments as assessee’s income. In the present case, the appellant had offered the explanation before the lower authorities in support of the source of cash deposits. It was stated by the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of the cash gift received from his father. The appellant also filed a copy of memorandum of gift deed and declaration received from his father as well as evidence in support of the source of income of his father i.e. agreement to sell the agricultural land etc. Thus, it cannot be said that the explanation offered by the appellant is not a plausible explanation. If the Assessing Officer doubts the availability of cash with the father of the appellant, right course of action available with the Assessing Officer to intimate Assessing Officer of the father of the appellant and to take necessary steps for assessment or the income of the father of the appellant. Instead in the present case, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the appellant merely on ITA No.255/PUN/2020 4 surmises etc, when the appellant had satisfactorily explained as to the source of the cash deposits made. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the lower authorities ought not to have rejected the explanation offered by the appellant in support of the source of the cash deposits made in the bank account. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.21,45,000/- u/s 69 of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on this 28 th day of December, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 28 th December, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.