ITO, New Delhi V. Smt. Omwati, Delhi

ITA 2954/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97925 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Assessee Lawyers: OMWATI IN PERSON
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Salary income
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2954/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2 954 /DEL/2013 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 ITO, WARD 45(2), NEW DELHI VS. SMT. OMWATI HOUSE NO. 580, VPO-GHEVRA, DELHI 110 081 (PAN: AACP09272C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. P. DAM KANUNJNA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SMT. OMWATI, (ASSESSEE IN PERSON) DATE OF HEARING : 16-11-2015 DATE OF ORDER : 23-11-2015 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 20.3.2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN: (I) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS BY ITA NO.2954/DEL/2013 2 IGNORING THE MATERIAL FACT THAT THE DEPOSIT WAS MAD E WELL BEFORE THE DATE OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BEFORE THE DATE OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT I.E. 1.6.2009. (II) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,000/- REGARDING WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN HER HUSBAND AND SH. MK BHARDWAJ PROPRIETOR M/S MK BHARDWAJ CONSTRUCTION CO. (III) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND AMEND ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 28 TH JULY, 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,95,800/ -. THE CASE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 5.5. 2010. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS ON AIR INF ORMATION AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 25.8.2010 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE THERETO, ASSESSEES AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO T IME AND FURNISHED DETAILS/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WERE EXAMINED AN D PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A TEACHER IN GOVT. CO-ED S ECONDARY SCHOOL, GHEVRA, DELHI. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SALARY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS. 17,00,000/- IN CASH IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, GHERBA BRANCH, DELHI (RS. 8,00,000) ON 19.5.2008 AND RS. 9,00,000/- ON 2 5.2.2009 AND ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT S OF RS. 17,00,000/- IN THE SAID BANK. ASSESSEE FILED HER RE PLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY, AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT CASH OF ITA NO.2954/DEL/2013 3 RS. 8,00,000/- DEPOSITED ON 19.5.2008 AND RS. 9,00, 000/- ON 25.2.2009 WHILE THE FAMILY SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON 1.6.2008 AFTER THE DEPOSITS OF THE CASH IN THE BANK. SECON DLY, IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT SMT. OM WATI HAS DEPOSITED THE AMO UNT RECEIVED AFTER FAMILY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. IT MEANS THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/- OUT OF UNDIS CLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND OTHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ESTABLISHES THAT SH. MK BHARDWAJ HAS NOT MADE ANY TRANSACTION OF CASH (GIVEN/TAKEN) WITH SH. RAJ SINGH SHARMA. HENCE, IT PROVES THAT THE CASH OF RS. 9,00, 000/- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK IS ALSO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE UN DISCLOSED SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ASSESSED THE INCOME OF RS. 17, 23,640/-, AFTER MAKING THE ADDITION PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961. 4. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER 20.3.2013 BY DELETI NG THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 20.3.20 13, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITE RATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, ASSESSEE HERSELF RELIED UPON TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. W E FIND THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE FIELD A COPY OF KHATONI, FA MILY SETTLEMENT AMONG THE MEMBERS AND COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION BY THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY THAT THE SAID MONEY WAS COLLE CTIVELY PAID BY THEM FROM TIME TO TIME TO THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESS EE SH. RAI SINGH ITA NO.2954/DEL/2013 4 SHARMA WHO DEPOSITED THE SAME IN THE ACCOUNT-NO. 3073010101004248 OF THE ASSESSEE IN ONE DATE I.E. D ATED 19.05.2008 THE SAME WAS STATED BEFORE THE AO AND THE ADDITION SUCH MADE ARE WRONG. 8.1 WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHDRAWN RS.4.5 LAKH ON DATED 17.06.2008 AND RS.4 LAKH ON DATED 09.08.2008 AND GA VE THE SAME TO HER HUSBAND SH. RAI SINGH SHARMA WHO ONWARDS GAVE T HE SAME TO M/S. M.K. BHARDWAJ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 333: VILLA GE AND POST OFFICE GHOGA, NEW DELHI TO EARN AFTER HIS RETIREMEN T FROM GOVT. SERVICE. HE LEFT THE CONTRACTOR AFTER 8-9 MONTHS AN D IN LIEU RECEIVED BACK RS.9 LAKH WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE SAME BAN K ACCOUNT ON DATED 25.02.2009. M/S. M.K. BHARDWAJ CONSTRUCTION C OMPANY STATED THE SAME FACTS IN HIS CONFIRMATION DATED 13.03.2013 AND HE COULD NOT REFLECT IN HIS BOOKS OF A/C AS THE MONEY WAS TAKEN AND GIVEN IN THE SAME F.Y. I.E. 2008-09. 8.2 WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE CONTRACTOR MADE THE ST ATEMENT BEFORE THE AO ON DATED 07.12.2011 AS WRITTEN IN HIS ORDER HENCE THE ADDITION SUCH MADE ARE WRONG. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER RET URN FROM THE SALARY WORKING AS A SCHOOL TEACHER AND PAYING TAXES THEREOF RELATING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE WE FIND THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 8.3 WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AO HAD MADE WRONG ADD ITION OF RS.17,00,000/- ON CASH DEPOSIT. INITIAL RS.8,00,000 /- DEPOSITED IN BANK ALC WAS OUT OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT FROM OTHER BR OTHERS OF HUSBAND. THE REFUND OF RS.9 LAKH WAS FROM THE CONTRACTOR WIT H WHOM HUSBAND WAS WORKING FOR 8 MONTHS. THE ASSESSEE WAS SCHOOL T EACHER IN GOVT. SCHOOL IN DELHI DURING THE YEAR. AND TWO CASH DEPOS ITS OF RS.17 LAKHS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT (MADE IN THE ORDER) ARE FROM EX PLAINED SOURCES AS DISCUSSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGEND ORDER. ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITA NO.2954/DEL/2013 5 ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR EXPLAINING HER SOURCE OF RS. 17,00,000/-. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDI TION IN DISPUTE. WE FULLY AGREED WITH THE SAME, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND DISMISS THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/11/2015. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 23/11/2015 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES