Neeraj Kant Laxman, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ward-2(1), Muzaffarnagae

ITA 3229/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0260 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PULKIT VERMA
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3229/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Neeraj Kant Laxman, FD-33, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP) Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Muzaffarnagar, PAN :AAJPL6763A (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 21.2.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of an amount of Rs.5,69,800 made under Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act,1961. 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute the assessee filed his return of Appellant by Shri Pulkit Verma, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.07.2022 Date of pronouncement 19.10.2022 2 ITA No.3229/Del./2018 income on 14.10.2012 declaring income of Rs.4,95,770. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.21,38,000 made in the bank account. In the reply furnished, though, the assessee stated that the cash deposits were made out of explained sources, however, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. Accordingly, he added back the amount of Rs.21,38,000 to the income of the assessee. Assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals). 4. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the addition has to be made on peak basis. Accordingly, he restricted the addition to Rs.5,69,800. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. 6. It is observed, while explaining the source of cash deposits made in the bank account to the tune of Rs.21,38,000 the assessee has claimed availability of opening cash balance of Rs.12,00,000 as on 31.03.2012. Further, the assessee has stated that the cash deposits 3 ITA No.3229/Del./2018 were out of several withdrawals made during the year. In this regard, the assessee has submitted that he used to withdraw cash either through relatives or persons who were employed by him. In the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer had examined the persons who used to withdraw money from bank account and their confirmations were also filed. As could be seen from the facts on record, the assessee’s contention regarding withdrawals made by relatives and other persons were accepted in case of all persons except one, namely, Mr. Subhash who could not be produced for examination of the Assessing Officer during remand proceedings. However, it is fact on record that a sworn affidavit of the concerned person was filed in course of remand proceedings. When assessee’s explanation with regard to withdrawals of cash through different persons was found correct in case of most of the persons, only because one of the persons, could not be produced, for whatever may be the reason, solely on that basis, assessee’s claim cannot be rejected. It is a fact on record that departmental authorities have accepted assessee’s explanation regarding availability of cash out of opening cash balance 4 ITA No.3229/Del./2018 and withdrawals made during the years, for which reason, the addition has been scaled down from Rs.21,38,000 to Rs.5,69,800. 7. In my view, the addition of Rs.5,69,800 also cannot survive as the explanation furnished by the assessee for explaining the source of cash deposits will also hold good in respect of such addition. Accordingly, I delete the addition of Rs.5,69,800. 8. In view of my decision on merits, the grounds raised on legal issues having become academic, do not require adjudication. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 19 th October, 2022. Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 19 th October, 2022. Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi