Shri Manohar Lal Sindhi, Bhilwara V. ITO, Ward-5, Bhilwara

ITA 352/JODH/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9981 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A.S. YADAV LD.
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Maximum Marginal Rate; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.352/JODH/2018 SHRI MANOHAR LAL SINDHI ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) ./ I.T.A. NO.352/JODH/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) SHRI MANOHAR LAL SINDHI C/O.RAJENDRA JAIN ADVOCATE 106, AKSHAY DEEP COMPLEX 5TH B ROAD, SARDARPURA, JODHPUR RAJASTHAN-342 001. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD - 3 BHILWARA RAJASTHAN ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AHNPS-4432-Q ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : MS. RAKSHA BIRLA (CA) & SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN (ADVOCATE)LD.ARS. REVENUE BY : SHRI A.S. YADAV- LD. SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 05/11/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/12/2020 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): - 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2015-16 CONTEST THE ORDER OF L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-(APPEALS), AJMER, [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], 2 ITA NO.352/JODH/2018 SHRI MANOHAR LAL SINDHI ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 APPEAL NO.435/2017-2018 DATED 28/05/2018 ON FOLLOWI NG EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, THE ID CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,51 ,6307- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE ACT. 2) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE WHICH WERE SUPPORTED FROM DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES. 3) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE APPLICATION OF PROVI SION OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. AS EVIDENT, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY CONFIRMATI ON OF CERTAIN ADDITION U/S 69C FOR RS.3.51 LACS. 2. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS AND DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE JUDICIAL PR ECEDENTS AS RELIED UPON DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HAVE DULY BEEN DELIBERATED UPON. OUR ADJUDICATION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER WOULD BE AS GIVEN IN SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL WAS ASSE SSED U/S. 143(3) ON 22/12/2017 WHEREIN IT WAS SADDLED WITH AN ADDITION OF RS.3,51,630/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S.69C. D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN TH E SHAPE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SITUATED AT AZAD MOHALLA, BHILWAR A WAS FOUND TO BE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE SU B-REGISTRAR, BHILWARA UNDER A GIFT DEED. ON PERUSAL OF THE GIFT DEED, IT WAS NOTICED THAT STAMP DUTY, OTHER CHARGES OF REGISTRY AMOUNTING TO RS.4,20,130/- WERE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXECUT ION OF THE 3 ITA NO.352/JODH/2018 SHRI MANOHAR LAL SINDHI ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 ABOVE MENTIONED GIFT DEED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSE E WAS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT. 3.2 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 L ACS WAS BORNE BY ASSESSEES WIFE WHEREAS THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OUT OF PAST SAVINGS. BUT TH E ASSESSEES WIFE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME TILL AY 2015-16. FINALLY, A SUM OF RS.70,000/- WAS CONSIDERED AS SAVINGS OF EARLIER YE ARS AND BALANCE RS.3,51,630/- WAS ADDED TO ASSESSEES INCOME U/S.69 C AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE SAME WOULD BE TAXABLE AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115 BBE(1)(A). OF THE ACT. 4. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THE S AME POSITION AND DREW ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEES WIFE FILED AS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) OPINED THA T THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE HAD CASH IN HAND OF RS.2 LACS AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS WERE TO BE CONFIRMED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURT HER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT IT IS T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 LACS WAS SOURCE D OUT OF PAST SAVINGS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE. IN SUPPO RT, AN AFFIDAVIT FROM ASSESSEES WIFE WAS ALSO FILED, A COPY OF WHIC H IS ON RECORD. WHILE ADMITTING THE AFORESAID PAYMENT, IT HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE WIFE THAT THE MONEY WAS SAVED OUT OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM PARENTS /CLOSE RELATIVES ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE AS WEL L AS THEREAFTER FROM TIME TO TIME. THE SAID PRACTICE IS NOT UNCOMMO N KEEPING IN 4 ITA NO.352/JODH/2018 SHRI MANOHAR LAL SINDHI ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 VIEW THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF THE SOCIETY AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE ALTOGETHER. THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE MARRIED SINCE 1985. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT AMOUNT AD VANCED WAS ONLY RS.2 LACS, THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE WI FE WAS TO BE ACCEPTED. SO FAR AS THE NON-FILING OF RETURN IS CON CERNED, THE LAW DOES NOT OBLIGATE A PERSON TO FILE THE RETURN UNLES S THE INCOME EXCEEDS CERTAIN THRESHOLD LIMIT. APPARENTLY, THE AS SESSEES WIFE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL, THE EXPLANATION WAS TO BE ACCEPTE D. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE S INCE PAST 7 YEARS. HE IS AGED 53 YEARS AND STATED TO BE EARNING S SINCE PAST 33 YEARS AND THEREFORE, IT COULD SAFELY BE PRESUMED TH AT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.21 LACS WAS SOURCED OUT OF PAST SAVINGS. IN FA CT, THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR HAS BEEN FILED AT RS.1.18 LACS. THE ACCEPT ED FIGURE OF RS.0.70 LACS WAS ONLY AN ESTIMATED FIGURE WITHOUT L OOKING INTO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF FORGOING, WE ARE INCLINED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. WE ORDER SO. 6. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED U/R 34(4) OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 21/12/2020 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE 5 ITA NO.352/JODH/2018 SHRI MANOHAR LAL SINDHI ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$' / THE RESPONDENT 3. % ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. % / CIT CONCERNED 5. &'#( ) , ) , / DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. '+,- / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, JODHPUR.