ITO, Rohtak V. Sh. Inder Singh, Rohtak

ITA 3469/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6790 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVEEN GUPTA ADVCOATE
• Keywords: Peak credit
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3469/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3469/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ROHTAK VS. SHRI INDER SINGH, 808/25, CHINYOT COLONY, ROHTAK (PAN: AFWPK1903P) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. NAVEEN GUPTA, ADVCOATE DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTY, SR. D.R. ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 13.5.2 010 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CALCULATING PEAK CRED IT AT ` 31,440/- AGAINST THE ADDITION OF ` 11,31,600/-. 3. THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS FRAMED U/S 144 O F THE IT ACT. ASSESSEE WAS A CATTLE DEALER. HE DECLARED NET PROFI T OF ` 98560/-. DURING THE YEAR ON EXAMINING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, ITA NO. 3469/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 2 ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITE D CASH OF ` 11,31,600/- IN AXIS BANK, ROHTAK ACCOUNT. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN IN THIS REGARD. THER EFORE, HE ADDED THE TOTAL AMOUNT TO HIS INCOME. 4. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS A CATTLE DEALER AND HE IS ALSO HAVING A BUSINESS OF DAIRY. HE IS NOT WELL EDUCATED AND HE I S NOT MAINTAINING RECORD ON DAY TO DAY BASIS. FROM THE COPY OF THE BAN K ACCOUNT, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT T HERE WAS MAXIMUM DEPOSIT OF ` 1,00,000/- ONLY AT ONE TIME AND THE MAXIMUM REMAINED WITH THE BANK WAS ` 1,30,000/- ON 20.11.200 6. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO OBSERVED T HAT THIS ACCOUNT WAS OPENED ON 15.11.2006. A PERUSAL OF THE BANK AC COUNT SHOWED THAT THERE IS A SERIES OF CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH WI THDRAWALS THROUGH ATM THROUGHOUT THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AS SESSMENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) FOUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ACTION OF TREATING THE CASH AGGREGATING TO ` 11,31,600/- AS UNEXPLAINED WAS NOT PROPER. MORE S O, WHEN THE MAXIMUM BALANCE REMAINING WITH THE BANK WAS ` 1,30,00 0/- ON 20.11.2006 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF ` 98 560/-. SO LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD AT THE MOST ADDITION, IF MADE CAN ONLY OF THE PEAK CREDIT MINUS INCOME DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS WORKED OUT TO ` 31440/- (130000 98560). ACCORDINGLY, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 31440/- ONLY. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. ITA NO. 3469/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT DURING THE YEAR THERE WERE SERIES OF D EPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE MAXIMUM BALAN CE AT A PARTICULAR TIME WAS ONLY ` 1,30,000/-. HENCE, LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN THAT AMOUNT AS PEAK CREDIT AND FROM THERE HE HAS REDUCED THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/11/2010. SD/- SD/- [A.D. JAIN] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 16/11/2010 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES