Pooja Sharma, Uttar Pradesh V. ITO, Noida

ITA 3407/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6697 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: PREM ARORA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3407/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 POOJA SHARMA, D-147, SECTOR-ALPHA 1, GREATER NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH. PAN: BHEPS9864E VS. ITO, WARD-3(3), NOIDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PREM ARORA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI F.R. MEENA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.02.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 31.03.2016 IN RELATION TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,88,620/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE S. THE ITA NO.3407/DEL/2016 2 FACTS APROPOS THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED TO HAVE EARNED GROSS TUITION FEES OF RS.3,83,860/-. EXPENS ES OF RS.1,88,620/- WERE CLAIMED AGAINST SUCH GROSS RECEI PTS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE EXPE NSES. THE AO, THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,88,620/-, WHIC H CAME TO BE AFFIRMED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IS AG GRIEVED AGAINST SUSTENANCE OF SUCH ADDITION. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.1,88,620/- AGAINST THE GROSS TUITION INCOME EARNED BY HER AT RS.3,83,860/-. BOTH THE AUT HORITIES HAVE RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADDUCE ANY SUPPORTING VOUCHER/BILLS IN SUPPORT OF SUCH EXPENSES. THE POS ITION CONTINUES TO REMAIN THE SAME BEFORE ME AS WELL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE WORTH THE NAME, I HOLD THAT THE EXPENSES WERE RIGHTLY DISALLOWED AND SUSTAINED BY T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THIS GROUND FAILS. ITA NO.3407/DEL/2016 3 4. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMATI ON OF ADDITION OF RS.1,82,300/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE AO RECORDED IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT PART B-T1 (COMPUTATION OF TOT AL INCOME) OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INDICATED THAT SHE HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,82,300/- ON BEING CALLE D UPON TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EARNING SUCH AGRICULTURAL IN COME, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN BY HER IN THE RETURN. EVEN A COPY OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED IN WHICH THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. NOT CONVINCED, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,82,300/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF EARNING THIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE SAME. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY STATED BEFORE THE AO THA T THERE WAS SOME SYSTEM ERROR IN THE NOTING BY THE AO ABOUT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.3407/DEL/2016 4 DISCLOSING ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AB INITIO WAS THAT NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS EARNED OR DECLA RED BY HER. THE LD. AR HAS PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF T HE RETURN DOWNLOADED FROM THE SYSTEM. PART B-T1 (COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME) UNDER COLUMN 13 NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME S HOWS FIGURE OF 0. THUS, IT IS VIVID THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS RIGHTLY CONTENDING BEFORE THE AO THAT SHE HAD NOT EARNED AN Y AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THERE WAS SOME SYSTEM ERROR . THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER DE CLARED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE PRECEDING OR SUCCEED ING YEARS. SUCH A CONTENTION WAS UNCONTROVERTED ON BEHALF OF T HE REVENUE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I VALIDLY DRAW A N INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INDICATE ANY AG RICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,82,300/- WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN SEPAR ATELY ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THIS ADDITION IS, THEREF ORE, DELETED. 6. THE LAST GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF A DDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BANK DEPOSITS. THE AO OBSERVED ITA NO.3407/DEL/2016 5 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING A SAVING BANK ACC OUNT JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND, SHRI TRILOK SHARMA, WHERE IN THE PRIMARY OPERATOR WAS HER HUSBAND. ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE FOLLOWING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT:- 1. ON 28.09.2010 RS.1,00,000/- 2. ON 21.12.2010 RS.50,000/- 3. ON 13.01.2011 RS.1,00,000/- TOTAL RS.2,50,000/- 7. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SU CH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS D EPOSITED OUT OF HER RECEIPTS FROM TUITION. NOT CONVINCED, THE A O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- BY ACCEPTING MAXIMUM CAPA CITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT CASH AT RS.1 LAC. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN TUITION INCOME AT RS.3,83,860/-. ADMITTEDLY, THE BANK ITA NO.3407/DEL/2016 6 ACCOUNT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS JOINTLY OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND. GOING BY THE AOS VERSION T HAT IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.2,50,000/- I N THIS BANK ACCOUNT, I STILL FIND THAT TUITION RECEIPTS OF RS.3 ,83,860/- ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS. AS SUCH, THE RE IS NO SCOPE FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BANK DE POSITS. I, THEREFORE, ORDER TO DELETE THIS ADDITION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.02.201 7. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.