ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Mukesh Yadav, New Delhi

ITA 3724/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6312 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 27-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM ITA NO.3724/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ITO, WARD-26(3), NEW DELHI. VS. MUKESH YADAV, HOUSE NO.74, VILLAGE PAPRAWAT, NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI. PAN: ABTPY9192P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 27.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.03.2017 ORDER PER SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 30.03.2013 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDI TION OF RS.3,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN. ITA NO.3724/DEL/2013 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144, ADDED A SUM OF RS.3,50 ,000/-, BEING UNSECURED LOAN SHOWN FROM SHRI HAMANT YADAV. THE AS SESSEE FURNISHED MATERIAL/EXPLANATION ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE L OAN BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO SENT THE SAME TO THE AO FO R COMMENTS. AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ADVERSELY COMMENT UPON TH IS UNSECURED LOAN IN HIS REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDIT ION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF TH E ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,50,000/- ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND REPORT IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ADVERSELY COMMENT UPON THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF TH E LOAN RECEIVED FROM THE REAL BROTHER. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND FAILS. 5. THE SECOND GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADD ITION OF RS.35,55,150/-, BEING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACC OUNT. THIS ADDITION COMPRISES OF TWO AMOUNTS, NAMELY, RS.19 LAC AND RS. 16,55,150/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION BECAUSE OF THE COMPLETION OF ITA NO.3724/DEL/2013 3 ASSESSMENT U/S 144. THE ASSESSEE FILED EVIDENCE BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) GOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AFTER OBT AINING REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ACCEPTED THE ASSESS EES CONTENTION FOR OFFER OF INCOME AT RS.1,09,691/- U/S 44AF AT 5% OF DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.27,05,150/-. 6. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND GOING THROUGH THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST TRANSACTION IS CA SH DEPOSITS OF RS.19 LAC IN HDFC BANK ACCOUNT. PAGE 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DEALS WITH THIS AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILED NARRATIONS OF RS.19 LAC EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT. SUCH NARRATIONS WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADVERSE COMM ENT ON THE SAME IN HIS REMAND REPORT. ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS CHOSEN NOT TO SPEAK ANYTHING AGAINST SUCH EVIDENCE, IT SHOWS THAT HE IM PLIEDLY ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. AS SUCH, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION. 7. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF ADDITION OF R S.16,55,150/-, WE FIND FROM PARA 4.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 1 31 TO THE PERSONS ITA NO.3724/DEL/2013 4 WHO HAD GIVEN CASH TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ALL OF THEM ACCEPTED THE FACT OF HAV ING MADE DEPOSITS WITH THE ASSESSEE, A PROPERTY DEALER, FOR PURCHASIN G SOME PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK HAS BEEN SATISFACT ORILY EXPLAINED AND HENCE THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF SUCH AN ADDITION OF RS.35,55,150/-. HOWEVER, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1, 09,691 SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSEES ADMISSION FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 44AF, STANDS AS SUCH SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 TH MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R. S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 TH MARCH, 2017. DK ITA NO.3724/DEL/2013 5 COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI