Amar Nath Kakkar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3627/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0716 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS PRATIMA KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.3627 /DEL/10 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3627 /DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI AMAR NATH KAKKAR, ITO, E-161, GREATER KAILASH, WARD-23 (2), PART-II, NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AAAPK AAAPK AAAPK AAAPK- -- -7138 7138 7138 7138- -- -D DD D APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : MRS.PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR.DR ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A)- XXI, NEW DELHI DATED 17.5.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWIN G ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 1. IN TREATING THE LOAN OF `.4,00,000/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN MAKING AN ADDITION IN A SUM OF `.60,000/- ON ACC OUNT OF ALLEGED LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. . I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL/10 2/3 3. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDIN G GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPY O F INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THE LENDER AS WELL AS HIS CONFIRMA TION, AFFIDAVIT AND COPY OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, LD CIT(A) WA S NOT JUSTIFIED TO CONFIRM THIS ADDITION. IT IS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE CONFIRMATION IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS NO TICED BY THE BENCH THAT IN THE CONFIRMATION, THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IS `. 14 LAKHS AND NOT `.4 LAKHS AND NO DETAILS ARE GIVEN IN THE CONFIRMATI ON AND HENCE IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THIS CONFIRMATION AS TO WHETHER THE AM OUNT IN QUESTION OF `.4 LAKHS IS INCLUDED IN THIS OR NOT. IN REPLY, I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMI NING ALL THESE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE CONFIRMATION AND AFFIDAVIT O F THE LENDER. 4. REGARDING GROUND NO.2, HE POINTED OUT THAT IT WA S SUBMITTED BY LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A SR. CITIZEN AND IS LIVING WITH HIS ONLY SON WHO IS TAKING CARE FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL HIS DAILY ROUTINE NEEDS AND HENCE, THE WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OF `..25,000/- IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER HIS EXPENSES. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISIO N AFTER EXAMINING THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE REASONS FOR MAKING THESE TWO ADDI TIONS OF `.4 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN AND `.60,000/- ON ACCOUNT O F LOW WITHDRAWALS. LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO DECIDED BOTH THESE ISSUES WITHOUT PROP ERLY EXAMINING VARIOUS CONTENTIONS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CES FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE . I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL/10 3/3 ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION AND HENCE, WE SET A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FU RNISH ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N BOTH THE ISSUES AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PASS NE CESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION, WE DO NOT MAK E ANY COMMENT ABOUT THE MERIT OF THESE TWO ADDITIONS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH JANUAR Y, 2011. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (A.K. GARO DIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 7 .1.2011. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).