VANDANA PUNIA, HISAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 296/JPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5453 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R S POONIA
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES B JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 296/JP/2020 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 VANDANA PUNIA H. NO. 1920, NEAR GEETA BHAWAN, MOHALLA RAMPURA, HISAR, HARYANA CUKE VS. ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ATUPP8326R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. R. S. POONIA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT MANISHA CHOUDHARY (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/09/2021 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/09/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 19.03.2020 WHEREIN THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 5,16,696 /- OUT OF RS 13,45,600/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR TAKEN U S THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.13,45,600/- MADE BY THE AO, THE LD. CIT(A) REDUC ED THE ADDITION TO RS. 5,16,696/- APPLYING THE PEAK CREDIT THEORY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE APPLYING PEAK CREDIT THEORY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ALLOWED BENEFIT OF SOURCE OF SUCH PEAK CREDIT THEORY WHICH HAS BEEN EX PLAINED BY THE ITA NO. 296/JP/2020 VANDANA PUNIA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR 2 ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 5,00,000/ - ON 13.01.2011 FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS NOT USED ANYWHERE E LSE AND WAS AVAILABLE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AS CASH IN HAND. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER I TR DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,88,370/- FOR A.Y 2012-13 IN RESPECT OF WHICH TELESCOPING BENEFIT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LD CIT(A). 3. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD REGUL AR SOURCE OF INCOME AND HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,93,180/-. BESIDES THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SAV ED MONEY FROM REGULAR HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS KEPT TO BE USED IN CASE OF ANY FAMILY REQUIREMENT AND SHE BELONGS TO A REPUTED FAMILY AND HAD THUS KEPT CERTAIN CASH IN HAND WHICH WAS DEPOSITED AND NOT US ED ANYWHERE ELSE NOR THE LD AO OR LD CIT(A) BROUGHT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JAIPUR BENCHES DECISION IN CASE OF SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH VS ITO, WARD-3, BHARATPUR (ITA NO. 4 16/JP/2017) WHERE CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2013 WAS TAKEN AS SOURCE OF OPENING CASH IN HAND AS ON 1 ST APRIL OF 2013 AND THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT FROM O PENING CASH IN HAND WAS ACCEPTED. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CI T(A) HAS ALREADY ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF PEAK CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT RELIEF AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,28,904/- OUT OF TOTAL ADD ITION OF RS 13,45,600/-. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO EXPLAIN THE CORRESPONDING DEPOSIT MADE PRIOR TO WITHDRAWAL OF R S 5,00,000/- ON 13.01.20111 AND IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY NOT ALLOWED THE BENEFIT WHILE APPLYING THE PEAK CREDIT THEORY. THE LD. DR HAS THUS ITA NO. 296/JP/2020 VANDANA PUNIA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR 3 RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND IN SUP PORT, RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROSHAN DI HATTI VS. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSIT ION THAT ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF A SUM OF MONEY IS ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE LATTER HAS TO COME FORWARD WITH A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AND IN ABSENCE THEREOF, IT IS OPEN TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO HOLD THE SAME AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD CIT(A ) HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RETURNED A FINDING THAT EARLIER CASH WITHDRAWN CAN BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED SOURCE OF CAS H DEPOSIT IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT AND AT THE SAME TIME, CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS 5,00,000/- ON 13.01.2011, WHICH IS ALSO AN ADMIT TED FACT, HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED AND BENEFIT THEREOF HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN WHI LE WORKING OUT THE PEAK CREDIT. THE REASON FOR SUCH NON-ACCEPTANCE HA S BEEN STATED TO BE NON-SUBMISSION OF EXPLANATION ON PART OF THE ASSESS EE IN RESPECT OF CORRESPONDING DEPOSIT MADE PRIOR TO SUCH WITHDRAWAL . IN THIS REGARD, ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSEES BANK STATEMENT, WE FIND T HAT THERE IS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS 5,00,000/- ON 12.11.2010 WHICH WAS AV AILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS PER HER BANK STATEMENT AND WHICH WAS TH EN WITHDRAWN ON 13.01.2011. IT IS NOTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE REGARDING FREQUENT CASH WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF AVA ILING OD LIMIT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DULY CONSIDERED AND ACCEPTED BY THE LD CIT(A) W HILE WORKING OUT THE PEAK CREDIT. THEREFORE, WHERE SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS OF DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS EXIST IN THE PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR, T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DULY SUPPORTED BY HER BANK STATEMENTS CANN OT BE DISPUTED ITA NO. 296/JP/2020 VANDANA PUNIA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR 4 WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FURTHER, W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS 1,83,370/- IN H ER RETURN OF INCOME AND WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO WHICH AGAIN E XPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PART OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REASONABLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND THE ADDITIONS SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS HERE BY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/09/2021. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22/09/2021 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- VANDANA PUNIA, HISAR, HARYANA 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 296/JP/2020} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR