INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PATHANKOT V. SH. SANDEEP AGGARWAL , PATHANKOT

ITA 270/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3400 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAT INDER KAUR LD
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN LD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMR ITSAR BEFORE SH. N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.270(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-1 4 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, PATHANKOT VS. SH. SANDEEP AGGARWAL, S/O SUDESH KUMAR AGGARWAL, PROP. M/S. NAVIN STEEL &, M/S. SHIVAM ENTERPRISES, MISSION ROAD, PATHANKOT. [PAN:AAOPA 5021H] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SMT. RATINDER KAUR (LD. DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH. J.S. B HASIN (LD. ADV.) DATE OF HEARING: 19.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.02.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-2, AMRITSAR, U/S 250(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED A S THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. WHETHER OR THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD . CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AO HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,67,73,105/- AFTER MAKING A DETAILED ENQUIRES. 2. WHETHER OR THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CI T(A), AMRITSAR IS RIGHT IN HEAVILY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB 86 HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. AMAR CHAND & SONS IN ITA FACTS NO. 243 OF 2011 DATED 25.11.2017. WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THE CAS E ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THE CASE FROM PRESENT CASE BECAUSE UNLIKE THE CASE OF HIGH COURT CASE, THIS CASE HAS CASH DEPOSIT JUST ONE DAY BEFORE THE TRANSFER THROUGH RTGS. ITA NO.270 /ASR/2017 (A.Y.2013-14) ITO VS. SANDEEP AGGARWAL, PATHANKOT 2 3. WHETHER OR THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF EXPENSES MADE MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER IN WHICH ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN SOU RCES. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF SEVEN DAYS IN FILING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE DELAY O F SEVEN DAYS AS MEAGER, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND THER EFORE THE SAME IS CONDONED, HENCE PROCEEDED WITH THE MERIT OF THE CASE. 4. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DEL ETION OF ADDITIONS OF RS.1,67,73,105/-. THE LD. DR OUT RIGHTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACT THAT IN T HE INSTANT CASE THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION AFTER MAKING DETAILED ENQUIRIES. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING THE JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-II, LUDHIANA VS. M/S. AMAR CHAND & SONS IN ITA NO. 243 OF 2011 DATED 25.11.2017, WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE ENTI RELY DIFFERENT FROM THE SAID CASE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. AR HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT ONLY IN CONFIRMATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE, BUT ALSO BASED ON THE INDEPENDENT AN ALYZATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS. 6. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE ORD ERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITIONS HAS OBSERVED THAT IN ALL ADDITIONS, THE EVIDENCES QUA IDENT ITIES OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS BY FURNISHING THE REQUIRED D OCUMENTS TO THE AO AND IF THE AO STILL DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE AMO UNTS UNDER ITA NO.270 /ASR/2017 (A.Y.2013-14) ITO VS. SANDEEP AGGARWAL, PATHANKOT 3 CONSIDERATION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CONCERNED PART IES, THEN SHOULD HAVE PASSED ON THE INFORMATION TO THE CONCERNED AO OF T HE PARTIES FOR TAKING NECESSARY ACTION. WHILE DELETING THE ADDITIONS, T HE LD. CIT(A) ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-II, LUDHIANA VS. M/S. AMAR CHAND & SONS (SUP RA) , WHEREBY IT WAS HELD ' THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ASKED TO SHOW CREDITWORTHINESS OF HIS CREDITORS AND THE AO OF THE CREDITOR CAN ADD THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THAT CREDI TOR, IF HE HAS NOT SATISFIED BY THE EXPLANATION GIVEN AND I T IS NOT PLAUSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF T HE CREDITORS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN RECORDED AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF BANK CHANN EL AND THEREFORE, IT WAS FOR THE AO OF THE SAID CREDIT ORS TO QUESTION THE SAID CREDITORS, WHO WERE INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, THE AO COU LD NOT HAVE TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS BELONGING TO TH E ASSESSEE FROM HIS UNDISCLOSED SOURCES' . HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) THOROUGHLY GONE THROUGH THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCE OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT ROUTED THROUGH PROPER BANKING CH ANNEL AND SATISFIED HIMSELF ABOUT THE IDENTITIES OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUI NENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND WHILE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-II, LUDHIANA VS. M/S. AMAR CHAND & SONS (SUPRA) , DELETED THE ADDITIONS WHICH ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY, ILLEGALITY, PERVERSITY AND IMPROPRIETY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER , HENCE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. ITA NO.270 /ASR/2017 (A.Y.2013-14) ITO VS. SANDEEP AGGARWAL, PATHANKOT 4 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPA RTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.02.2019. SD/- SD/- (N.S.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED:21.02.2019 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) SH. SANDEEP AGGARWAL, S/O SUDESH KUMAR AGG ARWAL, PROP. M/S. NAVIN STEEL &, M/S. SHIVAM ENTERPRISES, MISSION ROAD, PATHANKOT. (2) THE ITO, WARD-3, PATHANKOT (3) THE CIT(A)-2, AMRITSAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER FILENAME: SANDEEP AGGARWAL, PATHANKOT 270-17 DIRECTORY: D:\DOCUMENT\NKC ORDERS 2018\NS SAINI & N KC TEMPLATE: C:\USERS\ETC PARMOD\APPDATA\ROAMING\MICROSOFT\TEMPLATES\NORMAL.D OT TITLE: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SUBJECT: AUTHOR: RAHUL PRABHAKAR KEYWORDS: COMMENTS: CREATION DATE: 2/20/2019 6:12:00 PM CHANGE NUMBER: 12 LAST SAVED ON: 2/26/2019 10:35:00 AM LAST SAVED BY: ETC PARMOD TOTAL EDITING TIME: 6 MINUTES LAST PRINTED ON: 2/26/2019 10:36:00 AM AS OF LAST COMPLETE PRINTING NUMBER OF PAGES: 5 (APPROX.) NUMBER OF WORDS: 1,012 (APPROX.) NUMBER OF CHARACTERS: 5,774 (APPROX.)