Janak Puria, Muzaffarnagar V. DCIT, Circle- 1, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 2925/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6988 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2925/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Janak Puria Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Chamber No.206- 207, Ansal “Satyam” RDC Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad PAN No.ACRPP0662J Vs DCIT Circle-1 Muzaffarnagar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Respondent Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 15/07/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-1(2), Muzaffarnagar dated 28.02.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2015-16 2 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidences brought on record in the form of paper book duly considered in the light of rule 18 (6) of ITAT Rules. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that for the year under consideration the assessee returned income of Rs.53,67,740/- under the head business income, short term capital gains etc. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 5. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to furnish the details of sale and purchase of shares on which short term, capital gains has been 3 shown. The asseessee filed necessary details and on perusal of the same the AO noticed that the assessee has shown value of purchase of shares at Rs.77,78,928/-. The AO was of the firm belief that the assessee has failed to explain the source of investment in purchase of shares and made addition of Rs.77,78,928/-. 6. The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the CIT(A) and furnished the details with corresponding evidences to explain the source of investment made in the purchase of shares. 7. After considering the facts and the submissions the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee has successfully explained the source of investment in the impugned shares by taking loan of Rs.25 lacs from Aditya Birla and, therefore, restricted the addition to Rs.52,78,928/- by allowing relief of Rs.25 lacs. 8. Before us the Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the assessee has furnished conclusive evidences in support of her explanation regarding source of investment in the shares. It is the say of the Counsel that the CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the facts in true perspective. 9. The DR placed strong reliance on the findings of the AO. 10. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities 4 below. The source of investment as explained by the assessee can be summarised in the following chart : - 5 11. A perusal of the aforementioned chart which is also part of the order of the CIT(A) clearly show that the shares of Wheel India were purchased by the assessee on 25.03.2014 pertaining to A.Y.2014-15 which is the immediately preceding assessment year. 6 12. Since the shares were purchased in A.Y.2014-15 we do not find any merit in the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year under consideration which is A.Y.2015-16, therefore, cost of acquisition of Rs.24,66,910/- is directed to be deleted. 13. Proceeding further we have carefully perused the copies of the bank statements brought on record. We have carefully examined the bank statements of the assessee and also the bank statement of her husband Pramod Kumar Parsrampuri from where the assessee has claimed to have taken loan. We have also carefully examined the bank statement in respect of Over draft facility availed by the assessee. We find that whenever the assessee purchased the shares, either the assessee has taken loan from her husband or has over drawn from her over draft facility. All investments match with the entries in the respective bank statements. In our considered opinion the assessee has successfully explained the source of investment in the purchase of shares, therefore, we do not find any merit in the additions made by the AO u/s. 69 of the Act which have been erroneously partly confirmed by the CIT(A) by not appreciating the facts in true perspective. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 7 Order pronounced in the open court on 15.07.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. CHOUDHRY) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. Private Secretary* Date:- .07.2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Date of dictation 13.07.2022 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/ PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. The date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order