SHRI SUNIL KUMAR , JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(4), JALANDHAR

ITA 337/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0465 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATBIR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P.K. ANAND
• Keywords: Gift; Peak credit; Speculation loss
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 337/ASR/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sunil Kumar S/o. Sh. Joginder Pal, 234-A Dilbagh Nagar, Jalandhar PAN-AYZPK 7515M (Appellant) Vs. Income-tax Officer Ward 1(4), Jalandhar (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. P. K. Anand, CA Respondent by: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.07.2022 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Jalandhar {in brevity CIT(A)} bearing appeal no. CIT(A)-1/JAL/10160/16-17, order dated 28.03.2018, passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax ITA No. 337/Asr/2018 Sunil Kumar v. ITO Act, 1961 (in brevity of the Act) for the Assessment year 2014-15. The impugned order was originated from the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Jalandhar (in brevity A.O) passed u/s. 143(3) dated 23.11.2016. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee filed the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act declaring income 2,37,290/-. Assessee generated speculation loss amount to Rs. 17,71,935/- from his share business. During the assessment proceedings, the ld. AO found that assessee deposited cash in HDFC Bank amount to Rs. 41,29,000/-. The assessee has cash in hand amount at Rs.21,50,230/- included cash amount of Rs.15,00,000/- gifted by his mother, Mrs. Paramjit Kaur. The ld AO prepare a cash trial on the basis of deposit of cash in bank and calculated that on dated 20.04.2013, the peak negative balance Rs.6,59,353/-, on 17.05.2013 Rs. 1,00,000/- is the peak negative balance and on 27.08.2013 Rs. 12,84,000/- is the peak cash deficit. The assessee added 3 peaks and calculated total deficit of cash Rs.21,27,353/-, which was added back in the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) ITA No. 337/Asr/2018 Sunil Kumar v. ITO upheld the order of the ld. A.O. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a Paper Book contained from page no. 1 to 12 and explained source of cash balance relating to sale of land of mother of the assessee, Smt. Paramjit Kaur. Assessee submitted the list of judgements and the documents filed before the ld. CIT(A) which is containing para 1 to 28 of the Paper Book. 4. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was assessed the peak credits. In the assessment year the ld. A.O. took the peak credits 3 times which is not logical. Further the sale of the assessee on which the assessee declares Net Profit u/s. 44AD was not properly considered by the ld. AO in his order. The peak should not be taken 3 times. The peak should come only once related deficit of cash balance. As particular contention of the assessee, the cash trial was not properly verified by the Revenue Authorities. We observed in the assessment order the ld AO had taken peak of deficit of cash number of times. The business of assessee ITA No. 337/Asr/2018 Sunil Kumar v. ITO was discussed properly in light of claim of section 44AD of the Act. The matter is setting aside to ascertain the proper peak considering the holistic factual matrix of the assessee’s transactions. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.07.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee ) Accountant Member Judicial Member Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order