ITO, Rewari V. Sh. Hari Ram, Rewari

ITA 3315/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7052 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH : SMC-II, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3315/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, REWARI. VS. SHRI HARI RAM, S/O. MATA DIN, MOH. KHALIAWAS, VPO DHARUHERA. REWARI. HARYANA. PAN: AALPR 5248Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. JAIN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 15.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.09.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 26.03.2015 OF THE CIT(A), ROHTAK INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.45,05,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DE POSIT, AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS EXPLAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO FILE ANY COGENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCE O F CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODU CED ORIGINAL AGREEMENT NEITHER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE THE A.O. NOR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO.3315/DEL/2015 PAGE 2 OF 4 2. THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR CONSIDERATION ON 1 5.09.2016, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE HAVING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DATE OF THE HEARING OF APPEAL. SINCE THE HEARING W AS ADJOURNED ON THE LAST OCCASION AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND NONE AP PEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FIXED DATE, I HAVE NO OPTION BU T TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX PARTE . ACCORDINGLY THE LD. DR WAS HEARD. 3. THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.45,05,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.49,55,000 IN SAVINGS BANK A/C NO. 01190001334 WITH SBI, DHARU HERA AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [THE A CT] HAVING INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 5. IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT FROM THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSI TS, A SUM OF RS.45 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ON 10.03.2007, OUT OF THE TOKEN MONEY RECEIVED FROM LT. SURENDER SINGH, S/O. SHRI MANOHAR SINGH VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 5.3.2007. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODU CE LT. SURENDER SINGH WITH WHOM HE HAS EXECUTED AGREEMENT TO SELL, THOUGH COPY OF AGREEMENT WAS PLACED ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.45,05,000 AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. ITA NO.3315/DEL/2015 PAGE 3 OF 4 6. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APP EALS) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED AGREEMENT OF SALE OF PROPERTY ON 5.3.2007 FOR A TOTAL PRICE OF RS.3,40,00,000, OU T OF WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED RS.50,00,000 AS EARNEST MONEY, AFTER EXECU TION OF THE SALE AGREEMENT. THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS WITNESSED BY SHR I DHARAMVEER SINGH AND LT. SHAMSHER SINGH. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DUL Y DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY PRODUCING THE WITNESSES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE PURCHASER LT. SURINDER SINGH COU LD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AS HE HAD EXPIRED ON 21.04.2008, BUT ONE OF THE SURVIVOR WITNESS SHRI DHARAMVEER SINGH WAS PRODUCED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE SOLE WITNESS HA D ADMITTED EXECUTION OF SALE AGREEMENT AND ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE. SINCE THE DEAL COULD NOT BE MATERIALISED, THE ENTIRE MONEY WAS REF UNDED TO LT. SURINDER KUMAR. 7. THE CIT(APPEALS) RE-EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF ASSESS EE AND BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION, HE DELETED THE ADDI TION. 8. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS SUCCESSFULLY PROVED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK BY PLACING THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE ITA NO.3315/DEL/2015 PAGE 4 OF 4 ON RECORD. BUT THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AS HE WAS NOT ALIVE, WHEREAS THE OTHER WITNESS WAS PRODUC ED FOR EXAMINATION. DURING THE COURSE OF HIS EXAMINATION, HE ADMITTED T HE FACTUM OF ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE TRANSACTIO N. SINCE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE WAS PLACED ON RECORD AND IN VIEW OF THAT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF DEPOSI TS CAN BE MADE. I ACCORDINGLY FIND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) AND I CONFIRM THE SAME. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER NEW DELHI, DATED, THE 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.