Income Tax Officer -VI(I), Lucknow V. Smt . Madhuri Mishra, Lucknow

ITA 337/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 33723714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Peak credit; Assessment record
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.337/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER - VI(1), LUCKNOW. VS. SMT. MADHURI MISHRA, 5/830, VIRAM KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW PAN:AHGPM0205J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.64/LKW/2012 (IN ITA NO.337/LKW/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 SMT. MADHURI MISHRA, 5/830, VIRAM KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW PAN:AHGPM0205J VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - VI(1), LUCKNOW. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. ASSESSEE BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. DATE OF HEARING 13/06/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 4 /07/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 30/04/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THIS APPEAL , THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.18,39,000/ - . HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. 2. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AS STATED ABOVE, AS AND WHEN NEED TO DOING SO ARISES WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE COURT. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT: (I) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS VIJAY AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES [2007] 294 ITR 610 (ALL) (II) BHAIYALAL SHYAM BEHARI VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [2005] 276 ITR 38 (ALL) 5. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE PRESENT YEAR IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 108 TO 110 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COP Y OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 44 TO 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 3 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 4.4 OF HIS ORDER THAT HE HAS EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND THEREAFTER , HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND RECEIPT S AND PAYMENT S ACCOUNT FOR THE PRESENT YEAR WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. HE HAS ALSO REPRODUCED THE POSITION OF CASH IN HAND AS ON 01/04/2008 AND ALSO AS ON 31/03/2009 ALONG WITH WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. THEREAFTER , HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE CASH FLOW STAT EMENT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINS THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS AVAILABLE BEFORE US ALSO IN THE PAPER BOOK AND FROM THE SAME , WE FIND THAT THE OPENING BALANCE HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.3,00,486/ - AND ALL THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE APPEARING IN THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IS EITHER OPENING BALANCE OR CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK. THERE IS ONE ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAM SHANKER TEWARI OF RS.4 LAC S ON 24/10/2008 AND IN THIS REGARD , WE FIND THAT THE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 24/10/2008 FOR MAKING ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 28 & 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN IT IS STATED BY SHRI RAM SHANKER TEWARI THAT HE HAD GIVEN RS.4 LAC S IN CASH ON 24/10/2008 AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.4 LAC S WILL BE PAID BY HIM IN DUE COURSE. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). REGARDING TWO JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT THE SAME ARE NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN THOSE CASES, THE ISSUE WAS ABOUT PEAK CREDIT BUT IN 4 THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT ENTIRE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK STANDS EXPLAINED AND HENCE PEAK ISSUE IS NOT PRESENT HERE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 0 4 /0 7 /2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR