Shri Waseem Siddqui, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 2609/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3720 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O. 2609 /DEL/201 7 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 20 12 - 13 WASEEM SIDDIQUI C/O, VINOD KUMAR GOEL, 282, BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES , MEERUT VS. ITO WARD - 2 ( 4 ) NEW DELHI PAN : ACBPW7687A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH , J .M . : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 2 0 . 12.2016 OF CIT(A) , ALIGARH PERTAINING TO 20 12 - 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR O N VARIOUS GROUNDS ASSAILING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8, 00,000/ - . 2. B OTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK BY WAY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE THERETO STATE D THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 31.3.2013 MAY BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION FILED, THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 8,00,000/ - IN THE ACCOUNT WAS HELD TO BE NOT EXPLAINABLE LEADING TO THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT. APPELLANT BY SH. VINOD KUMAR GOEL , ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 2 4 - 08 - 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T 050 18.10.2017 500500 18 77777 7755454484848 2 ITA NO . 2246 /DEL/201 7 3 . THE ASSESSEE RELYING UPON THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE NET PROFIT OF RS. 2,45,960/ - ON THE TURNOVER OF RS. 29,00,000/ - ODD WORKED OUT TO ALMOST 28.6%. THUS, IT WAS ARGUED THAT IT WAS MUCH MORE THAN THE ESTIMATED NET PROFIT OF 8% AS PER SECTION 4 4 AD OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSEE IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS NOT MAINTAIN ING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION BASED ON THE BANK DEPOSITS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE MADE. THE ASSESSEE IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS A TRADER IN CLOTH / HANDLOOM, HE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. INVITING ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 9 WHICH THOUGH IS A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS SUBMITTED WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLETELY TRANSFER RED HIS BUSINESS DUE TO DISTURBANCE S AT SRINAGAR TO MEERUT. 3. 1 REFERRING TO THE SAID LETTER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT APART FROM THE ARGUMENT THAT THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HIGHER THAN THE LEGISLATIVE ESTIMATE UNDER SECTION 44 AD . E VEN OTH ERWISE THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO W I ND UP ITS BUSINESS IN SRINAGAR AND DEPOSITED THE ENTIRE CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS OPENED SPECIFICALLY FOR DOING BUSINESS IN MEERUT . T HIS FACT IS EVIDENCED FROM PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 24 WHERE THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSEE IS OF SRINAGAR WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING SAME BUSINESS. AFTER INITIALLY OPENING THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH A DEPOSIT OF RS. 500/ - AMOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/ - ACCUMULATED FROM SRINAGAR BUSINESS WAS DEPOSITED OUT RIGHTLY . 4. THE LEARNED SR. DR RELIE D UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I FIND THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS WHERE DUE TO PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ASSESSEE AS A ONE TIME ACT RELOCATE D PART OF HIS BUSI NESS FROM A DISTURBED AREA TO MEERUT THE ONE TIME DEPOSITS OF RS.8 LACS AS HAVING ACCUMULATED FROM SIMILAR BUSINESS IN THE EARLIER YEARS IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE CAN BE SAID TO BE EXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE AS PER RECORD ADMITTEDLY DID NOT H AVE TAXABLE INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE FACT REMAINS THAT CONSISTENTLY THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME . T HIS ONETIME DEPOSIT OF RS. 8,00,000/ - IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNEXPLAINED . THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CONSEQUENTLY WAS NOT 3 ITA NO . 2246 /DEL/201 7 WARRANTED IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS . THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF ON 18 TH , OCTOBER , 201 7 . SD/ - (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER SH CO PY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR : ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , ITAT NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO . 2246 /DEL/201 7 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 24.08.2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 17.10.2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.