SHRIMATI JOGINDER KAUR, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER I(2), JALANDHAR

ITA 339/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0464 (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: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATBIR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P.K. ANAND
• Section: 147; 69; 143(3)

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. 339/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Joginder Kaur, W/o Jawahar Singh, 283-C, New Dilbagh Nagar Extsn., Jalandhar [PAN: ALYPK 3446M] Vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Jalandhar (Appellant) (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 was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar [in brevity the CIT(A)], bearing Appeal No. 263/16-17/CIT(A)-1/JAL dated 27.03.2018 u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in brevity the Act], in respect of Assessment Year 2009-10. The impugned order was generated from the order of Income Tax Officer 1(2), ITA No. 339/Asr/2018 Joginder Kaur v. ITO 2 Jalandhar [in brevity the A.O.] passed u/s 147 & 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, dated 29.03.2014. 2. Brief fact of the case is that the addition was made for this assessment year amount to Rs.10,65,500/- as peak in cash deposit in the bank a/c of the assessee. As per the assessee, her husband is NRI and staying in USA and deposited amount through Western Union Indian Money transfer in the NRI saving a/c no. 55039384201. Her husband Mr. S Jowahar Singh deposited transferring money in financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08 amount to Rs.12,25,480/-. The assessee withdrawn cash 5.81 lacs from this saving bank a/c for the period from 15.11.2007 to 28.01.2008. The money was transferred for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 but the cash deposited in the year 2008-09. The source of the cash was from non- resident husband of the assessee. During the appeal proceedings, the assessee filed the additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the evidence and called for remand report. During the remand, the source was accepted but the time limit for deposit of cash was not accepted by the Ld. AO. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld. counsel of the assessee filed a paper book which is containing total 13 pages. The amount of cash was withdrawn from husband NRI account, and the assessee as the balance cash in her hand, accordingly Rs.10.65 lacs was deposited in the SBI A/c of the assessee. Ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the order of the ITA No. 339/Asr/2018 Joginder Kaur v. ITO 3 Coordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Bhawna Sareen v. DCIT in ITA No. 2017/Asr/2010 dated 24.12.2010. The extract of the order is as follow: “11. In the case of ACIT Vs. Baldev Rai Charla & Others (2009) 121 TTJ (Del) 366: (2009) 18 DTR 413, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi ‘C’ Bench has also taken a view that no addition under section 69 could be made only because there was some time gap between the withdrawals and cash deposits. In that case, the Tribunal has held that there being no material with the I.T. Authorities to show that 'the amount of cash deposits, admittedly withdrawn from the bank and assessee’s concern, were utilized for any other purpose, no addition could be made only on the ground that there being time gap between the withdrawals and the corresponding cash deposits. 12. In the present case, the department has not brought any sufficient, cogent or positive material on record to establish that the assessee has utilized this money somewhere else. So the same was not available with the assessee for the purpose of making deposits of Rs.18 lacs in the bank account in the year under consideration. 13. Therefore, relying upon the above-referred decisions, we hold that the assessee has been able to discharge the burden that lay upon him to prove the source of the amount of the cash deposits made in the bank account in the year under consideration. Therefore, the addition of Rs.18 lacs made by the A.O. is deleted. The orders of the authorities below on this point are thus reversed and the issue involved in this apnea] derided in favour of the assessee. We hold accordingly.” 4. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed for addition the peak amount of Rs.10.65 lacs. 5. We heard the rival submissions and the documents available in the record. It is accepted fact that the assessee’s husband is NRI and transferred the money for Western Indian Money Transfer in the bank a/c., the sources are well clarified only the time limit cannot be questioned for addition his peak. Here, we are accepting ITA No. 339/Asr/2018 Joginder Kaur v. ITO 4 the contention of the assessee and total addition should be deleted as the source of the cash deposit is already proved. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.07.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order