Rajesh Kumar Dixit, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-4(4), Kanpur

ITA 3/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4600 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.03/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 11 I.T.O., WARD 4 (4), KANPUR VS SHRI RAJESH KUMAR DIXIT, HOUSE NO. K 332B, KARAMPUR, YASODA NAGAR, KANPUR 208011. PAN:AQJPS4535M (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 01/0 3 /2016 DATE OF HEARING 15 /03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) I, KANPUR DATED 30/10/2014 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2010 11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 2 GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY G RIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS .24,40,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN T HE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IS EXPLAINED AS SALE OF JEWELLERY BY THE WI FE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 12 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND C OPY OF SALE BILLS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 9 TO 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LEARN ED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THE STAND AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND SALE BILLS OF JEWELLERY. THE EXPLA NATION WAS ACCEPTED ALSO BY CIT (A) IN PART. WHEN SALE OF JEWELLERY BY WIFE IS SUPPORTED BY HER AFFIDAVIT AND SALE BILLS AND IT IS STATED BY THE AS SESSEE AND HIS WIFE ALSO THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF SUCH JEWELLERY WAS DEPOSITED I N THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXPLAINED AND NO AD DITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, TH E A.O. IS AT LIBERTY TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF JEWELLERY SOLD BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF IT IS FOUN D THAT SOME PART OF IT IS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED, THERE MAY BE ADDITION IN HER HANDS BUT THE PRESENT ADDITION IS BEING DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED:15 TH MARCH, 2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR