Sanjeev Batra, New Delhi V. DCIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi

ITA 3093/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8671 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 142(1); 143(1)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3093/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SANJEEV BATRA, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), 10-D, SAGAR APARTMENTS NEW DELHI 6, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI 110001 (PAN: AAFPB9937Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANTOSH PATHAK, CA REVENUE BY : SH. SL ANURAGI, SR. DR. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 22.3.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-18, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I) ACTION OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 9,86,000/- INTO THE BANK OF THE APPELLANT, AS MADE BY THE DCIT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION 2 AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS UNJUST, ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. II) THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, SUBMIT AND WITHDRAW ANY GROUND BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FI LED RETURN OF INCOME ON 21.7.2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 33,27,726/ - WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S. 1 43(2) OF THE ACT DATED 24.7.2008 WAS ISSUED. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U /S. 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL AND IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S BATRA & CO CARRYING PRO FESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND DISCLOSED S ALARY INCOME, PROFESSIONAL INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE AT TENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED NECESSARY D ETAILS AND 3 DOCUMENTS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON VAR IOUS DATES AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS IS RS. 9,86,0 00/-. THE AR WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH DE POSITS. THE ASSESSEE ONLY FILED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE B ANK ACCOUNT OF THE BANK STATEMENT. HENCE, THE OBSERVED THAT HE WA S NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS, THEREFORE, HE TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND H AS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,86,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME A ND MADE VARIOUS OTHER ADDITIONS BY ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS. 44,39,690/- VIDE ORDER DATED 11.12.2009 PASSED U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.3.2018 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.9,86,000/- INTO THE BANK OF TH E ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE 4 WITH BOTH THE ACCOUNTS I.E. ABN AMRO BANK AND UCO BA NK WERE ALREADY WITH THE AO AND FROM THE IMPREST ACCOUNT IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT BEFORE DEOSTIING THE CASH INTO ACCOUNT T HERE IS CASH WITHDRAWAL IMMEDIATELY I.E. SOME DAY BEFORE THE DEPO SIT OF CASH. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE FILED A PA PER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-16 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF LETTER TO DCIT, CIRCLE 31(1), NEW DELHI DATED 23.11 .2009 IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; CASH IMPREST BOOK OF SH. S ANJEEV BATRA FROM 1.4.2006 TO 31.3.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE DC IT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE ABN AMRO BANK ACCOUNT OF SANJEEV BATRA SUBMITTED BEFORE DCIT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; LETTER TO ACIT, CIRCLE 31(1), NEW DELHI DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS DATED 6.1.2014; LETTE R TO ACIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI DATED 23.2.2017 DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS; LETTER TO ACIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI DATED 27.2.2017 DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS; A DOCUMENT I.E. CANCELLATION OF BOOKING OF PLOTS BY ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED BEFORE ACIT, CIRCLE 52(1) DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS; LETTE R TO CIT(A)- 18, NEW DELHI. HE ESPECIALLY DRAW MY ATTENTION TOWARD S PAGE NO. 16 OF PB WHICH IS DETAIL OF WITHDRAWAL AND DEPO SIT OF CASH AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT C ASH IN HAND 5 ON THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF SAME INTO THE BANK. IN S UPPORT OF AFORESAID CONTENTIONS, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAYA AGGAR WAL VS. ITO (2018) 92 TAXMANN.COM 108 (DELHI). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT HE HAS PASSED A WELL REASONE D ORDER, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE REC ORDS ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THAT IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANKS A FEW DAYS EARLIER. THE AO WAS ASKED VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 27.12.2013 TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AS THIS EXPLANATION W AS NOT PROVIDED TO THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE A O HAS SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 2 8.02.2017 IN WHICH THE AO HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HA S FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE B ANK AND HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E DOES NOT PASS THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. IT IS NOTED TH AT THE AO HAS FURTHER REPORTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE AR THAT PART OF 6 THE WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE FOR MAKING ADVANCE PAYMEN T FOR BOOKING OF RESIDENTIAL PLOTS AND THE SAME WAS RETUR NED SUBSEQUENTLY ON CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT, HAS N OT BEEN PROVED BY PRODUCING THE PERSONS WITH WHOM THE AGREE MENT WAS ENTERED INTO. THE AR WAS PROVIDED WITH A COPY O F THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND WAS ASKED TO OFFER HIS COMMENTS. THE AR HAS REITERATED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE MA DE FROM THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANKS. WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 5,98,600/- DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01.03.2007 TO 06.03.2007, THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS WER E MADE FROM THE CASH RECEIVED THE BACK FROM THE PERSON WIT H WHOM AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED. IN THIS REGARD, THE AR HAS FILED A CANCELLATION AGREEMENT ENTERED ON A PLAN PAPER, THE AUTHENTICITY OF WHICH IS QUESTIONABLE AND THE SAME APPEARS TO BE A SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT WHICH IS PREPARED AFTERW ARDS WITH THE INTENTION TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. THE AO ALSO WAS OF THE SAME VIEW, SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS BY IND EPENDENT EVIDENCE. IT IS ALSO TO BE OBSERVED THAT IT IS HIGH LY IMPROBABLE THAT ANY PERSON WOULD RECEIVE BACK THE AMOUNTS IN V ARIOUS INSTALLMENTS IN CASH AFTER CANCELLATION OF THE AGRE EMENT. THE 7 AR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE NEXUS BETW EEN THE CASH WITHDRAWALS AND THE CASH DEPOSITS. IN VIEW OF T HIS, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. THE CA SE LAW CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS DISTIN GUISHED ON FACTS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF DISPUTE AND REJECT THE GROUN D RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09-04-2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 09/04/2019 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES