Mr. Avinash Sharma, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 325/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2949 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 325/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 AVINASH SHARMA, R/O 1710, OUTRAM LINE, KINGSWAY CAMP, DELHI. PAN: BITPS8924D VS. ITO, WARD 20(4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH GUPTA, CA DEPTT. BY : SHRI AMRIT LAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.06.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 07.10.2014 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. IT IS A RECALLED MATTER INASMUCH AS THE EARLI ER EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECALLED, VIDE ITS LA TER ORDER DATED 21.04.2017. ITA NO.325/DEL/2015 2 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.10 LAC, WHICH HAS THREE COMPONENTS. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT THE ASSESSEE HAVING GIVE N AN ADVANCE OF RS.20 LAC TO MRS. URVASHI BANSAL FOR PURCHASE OF A FLAT. OUT OF THIS AMOUNT, A SUM OF RS.19,50,000/- WAS PAID DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAI N THE SOURCE OF SUCH PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER INHERITED A SUM OF RS.18,50,000/- IN CASH FROM HIS GRANDMOTHER, BEING, THE BALANCE AMOUNT REMAINING WITH HER FROM SALES PROCEEDS OF AG RICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE KAHTIA, DISTRICT HOSIARPUR, PUNJAB. THE AS SESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE WILL AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SALES PROCEEDS OF A GRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE A SSESSEES HALF SHARE IN CASH RECEIVED FROM THE WILL OF HIS GRANDMOTHER. TH E ASSESSEE CONTENTED THAT HIS BROTHER GAVE HIM HIS SEPARATE SHARE AMOUNT ING TO RS.9,25,000/- FOR THE PURPOSES OF GIVING ADVANCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF FLAT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN DETAILS WHICH WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONF IRMED THE ADDITION OF ITA NO.325/DEL/2015 3 RS.9,25,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SH RI ANURAG SHARMA, BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. COPY OF THE WILL OF SMT. KARAM KAUR IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 3 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH THERE IS A MENTI ON OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH HER AMOUNTING TO RS.18,50,000/- AS THE BALANCE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE KAHTI A, DISTT. HOSHIARPUR, PUNJAB. AS PER THE WILL, THE ASSESSEE INHERITED HA LF OF SUCH CASH, WITH THE REMAINING PART GOING TO HIS BROTHER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE RECEIPT OF RS.9,25,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT, DISPUTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM HIS BROTHER. THE ASSESSEES BROTHER SHRI ANURAG SHARMA FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT HE INHERITED RS.9,25,000/- AS CASH FROM HIS GRANDMOTHE R AND ALSO STATED THAT SUCH CASH WAS GIVEN BY HIM TO HIS BROTHER, THE ASSE SSEE, FOR INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF FLAT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BRUSHED AS IDE THE RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BROTHER ON HYPER TECHNICAL GROUND S. WHEN THE ASSESSEES SHARE FROM THE INHERITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.9,25, 000/-FROM THE WILL OF HIS GRANDMOTHER WAS ACCEPTED, THERE COULD HAVE NOT BEEN ANY DOUBT FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE AVAILABILITY OF EQUAL AMOUNT OF CASH IN THE HANDS OF THE ITA NO.325/DEL/2015 4 ASSESSEES BROTHER, WHO RECEIVED THE OTHER HALF SHA RE AS PER THE WILL AND AFFIRMED THE SAME HAVING BEEN GIVEN IT TO THE ASSES SEE. ONCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE WILL WAS ACCEPTED, THE AO COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW IN NOT ACCEPTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE SECOND HALF SHARE OF THE BROTHER IN CASH. I, THEREFORE, AC CEPT THE SAME AND ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.9,25,000/-. 6. THE OTHER TWO COMPONENTS OF THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAC ARE CASH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER AMOUNTING TO RS.50,000/- AND MOTHER AMOUNTING TO RS.25,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THESE RECEIPTS AND MADE ADDITION WHI CH WAS CONFIRMED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT BOTH THE PARENTS OF THE ASS ESSEE HAVE CONTRIBUTED RS.75,000/- IN TOTAL ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF FLAT. BOTH THE PARENTS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THE Y HAVE GIVEN THEIR RESPECTIVE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NOS. ALSO IN THEIR RES PECTIVE CONFIRMATIONS. IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE RECEIPT OF RS.75,000/- FROM HIS PARENTS. ITA NO.325/DEL/2015 5 8. TO SUM UP, THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAC IS HER EBY DELETED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 8 TH JUNE, 2017. SD/- (R.S. SYAL) VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 08 TH JUNE, 2017. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI