Smt. Palvinder Kaur w/o Sardar Karnail Singh, Morena V. I.T.O., Ward-2(2), Gwalior

ITA 365/AGR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 36520314 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BELU SINHA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.365/AGRA/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.365/AGRA/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 SMT. PALVINDER KAUR, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, W/O SH. SARDAR KARNAIL SINGH, WARD 2(2), GWALIOR. IN FRONT OF OFFICERS COLONY, HERO HONDA AGENCY, MORENA. [PAN : ADXPK 3726 B] APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. BELU SINHA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.07.2015 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS BEING DECIDED EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 3. GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDE R : I.T.A. NO.365/AGRA/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 4 1. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS IN HOL DING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147 WERE VALID. 4. NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THIS CA SE ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION. THE REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO. NO CASE FOR HOLDING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AS ILL EGAL COULD BE MADE OUT AND THEREFORE, GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AS UNDE R : 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 ABOVE, THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS IN NOT INTERFERING WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REPORT THAT THE HOUSEH OLD EXPENSES OF THE LAY RANGED BETWEEN RS.75000/- TO 90 000/- FROM A.Y. 2001-02 TO 2007-08 WHILE THE HOUSEHOLD EX PENSES OF THE APPELLANT LAY BY HER HUSBAND & AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,85,000/- WAS AVAILABLE OUT OF THE PAST INCOMES FROM 2001-02 TO 2007-08. FURTHER CREDIT OF RS.5,85,000/- MAY KINDLY BE GIVEN. 6. LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.11,7 0,000/- WAS MADE BY THE AO FOR CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE I N ITS BANK ACCOUNT WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, MORENA. SHE SUBMI TTED THAT THE WITHDRAWALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR MAKING THE CASH DEPOSIT TO THE TUNE OF RS.11,70,000/- IN ITS BANK A CCOUNT. THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY ALLOWED BENEFIT OF CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR AT RS.3,75,000/- AND BALANCE ADDITI ON OF I.T.A. NO.365/AGRA/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAGE 3 OF 4 RS.7,95,000/- WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). SHE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SUPP ORT OF THE CASE OF REVENUE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNE D DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). W E FIND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.7,95,000/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF DEPOSITS IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD AND HAS EXP LAINED THAT IT HAS WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS.80,000/- IN THE YEAR 2002-03, RS.80,000/- IN 2003-04, RS.85,000/- IN 2004-05, RS.85,000/- IN 200 5-06, RS.90,000/- IN 2006-07 AND RS.90,000/- IN THE YEAR 2007-08 AND SHE WAS DEPENDENT FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ON HER HUSBAND SAR DAR KARNAIL SINGH WHO IS STATED TO BE A BIG ASSESSEE ASSESSED F OR LAST 40 YEARS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT UNCOMMON THAT THE MARRIED LA DY IS DEPENDENT ON HER HUSBAND FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. HOWEVER, CONSID ERING THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND, I T CAN SAFELY BE INFERRED THAT SOME PART OF THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE LADY ASSESSEE MAY HAVE BEEN SPENT BY HER FOR HER OWN PERSONAL EXP ENSES AND THEREFORE, BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF WITHDRAW ALS MADE BY THE I.T.A. NO.365/AGRA/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAGE 4 OF 4 ASSESSEE IN PAST YEARS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE EXTENT OF WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE PAST YEARS, AS DETAILED ABOVE IN OUR ORDER, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING SPENT SOME PART OF THE WITHDRAWALS FOR HER O WN PERSONAL EXPENSES, WE HOLD THAT ENDS OF JUSTICE SHALL BE MET IF THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS RESTRICTED TO RS.3,50,000/- AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.7,95,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) A ND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- INTURI RAMA RAO G.C. GUPTA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (VICE- PRESIDEN T) DATED: AGRA: 24 TH JULY, 2015 *AKS/- COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA