Smt. Geeta Narula, Kanpur V. Inocme Tax Officer-2(1), Kanpur

ITA 371/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4857 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.371/LKW/2015 A.Y.:2001-02 SMT. GEETA NARULA, 125/67-C, K BLOCK, GOVIND NAGAR, KANPUR - 208006. PAN:AAIPN2371F VS. I.T.O. 2 (1), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 05/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14/01/2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT (A)- I, KANPUR DATED 07/04/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 -2002. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 5 GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ABOUT CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 150.000/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68. 3. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON P AGES 13 TO 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FOR YE ARS ENDED ON 31.03.1999 TO 31.03.2001 AND IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ON 31.03.1999 AND ON 31.03.2000, THERE IS AN ASSET SHOWN AS ADVANCE TO SHRI GYAN CHA ND JAIN RS. 150,000/- AND IT IS NOT APPEARING ON 31.03.2001. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS. 150,000/- IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS ON ACCOUNT OF REPA YMENT BY SHRI GYAN CHAND JAIN AND THIS IS NOT A CASH CREDIT AND THEREFORE TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 2 U/S 68 IS NOT JUSTIFIED. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENU E SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ALSO AS NOTED IN THE REMAND REPORT OF T HE A.O. REPRODUCED BY CIT (A) IN PARA 3.2 OF HIS ORDER. THE SAME WAS REJECTED ON THIS BASIS THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FILED. WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SAID TO BE FALS E BY SHOWING THAT THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.1999 AND 31.03.2000 WERE NOT FILED WITH INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THOSE YEARS SHOWING THEREIN THE AMOU NT AS RECEIVABLE FROM THIS PERSON. WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE IN EARLIER YEARS AND WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF 31.03.1999 AND 31 .03.2000 AS RECEIVABLE FROM THIS PERSON, FOR RECEIVING BACK THE SAID AMOUN T IN THE PRESENT YEAR BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE DRAFT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ADDED U/S 68. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAR ODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:14 TH JANUARY, 2016. *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR