Ravi Kant Bharti, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 373/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7558 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN P GEORGE
• Assessee Lawyers: MANU LUTHRA
• Keywords: Salary income; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 373/DEL/2014 AY: 20 05-06 RAVI KANT BHARTI, VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, 349, BHOLA NATH NAGAR, WARD 45(4), SHAHDARA, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI-110032 (PAN: AAKPB4208P) ITA NO. 668/DEL/2014 AY: 2005 -06 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS RAVI KAN T BHARTI, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANU LUTHRA, CA RESPONDENT BY : MS SUSAN P. GEORGE, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 26.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER BOTH THE APPEALS PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6. I.T.A. NO. 373 HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.11.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. C IT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI. I.T.A. NO. 668 IS THE CROSS APPEAL BY T HE DEPARTMENT. I.T.A. 373 & 668/D/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 2 SINCE BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A VICE- PRINCIPAL IN SIDDHARTH INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, EAST LONI ROAD, SHAHDARA, DELHI. THE ASSESSEE, LIKE EARLIER A SSESSMENT YEARS, FILED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005- 06 DECLARING INCOME FROM SALARY AND OTHER SOURCES I .E. BANK INTEREST AND INTEREST FROM NSC ETC DECLARING A TOTA L INCOME OF RS. 1,91,340/-. ON THE BASIS OF SOME INFORMATION, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 12.19 LAKHS IN CASH IN H IS SB A/C MAINTAINED WITH THE NAINITAL BANK LTD ., THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE IS SUED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AS HAS BEEN D ESIRED AND CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FILED EVI DENCE WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS. 12.19 LAKHS ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING THE YEAR IN HIS SB A/C MAINTAINED WITH THE NAINITAL BANK LTD. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALLY COMPLETED AT R S. 17,91,310/- AFTER MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS. 12,19,000 /- U/S 69A OF THE ACT BEING DEPOSITS IN NAINITAL BANK LTD. , R S. 68,000/- U/S 68 BEING DEPOSITS IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND RS. 2 ,97,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PAYMENT MADE BY THE SCHOOL IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS EMPLOYED. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), OUT OF I.T.A. 373 & 668/D/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 3 THE THREE ISSUES, TWO WERE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,60,000/- AND RS. 1,59,000/- WERE DELETED BY THE L D. CIT(A). THE ONLY ISSUE LEFT AND NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US IS THE ADDITION OF RS. 6 LAKH WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS HAVING REMAI NED UNEXPLAINED OUT OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN NAINITAL BA NK LTD. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WA S DEPOSITED ON 18.06.20004 IN ASSESSEES SB A/C MAINT AINED WITH THE NAINITAL BANK LTD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE YEAR 2002-03 THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE MRS. MANJU BHARTI WAS DIAG NOSED WITH LEVER FAILURE PROBLEM AND THE DOCTORS SUGGESTED HER FOR A MAJOR LEVER TRANSPLANT OPERATION AT THE EARLIEST. IT WAS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT SINCE THIS WAS A COSTLY TREATMENT, THE ASSESSE E WAS ADVISED TO ALWAYS KEEP SUFFICIENT FUNDS WITH HIM, WHICH COU LD BE REQUIRED AT ANY TIME. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF HIS DOCTORS ADVICE, THE ASSESSEE AND A SUM OF RS. 9.35 LAKH WAS SANCTIONED AND ACCORDINGLY DISBURSED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IS EVIDEN T FROM THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF ICICI BANK. IT WAS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT IMMEDIATELY THE FUNDS WERE WITHDRAWN BY THE AS SESSEE FROM THE BANK FOR MEETING THE DAY-TO-DAY CONTINGENCIES, BUT SINCE FOR ONE OR THE OTHER, THE OPERATION HAD TO BE POSTPONED AND THE I.T.A. 373 & 668/D/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 4 PATIENT WAS ADVISED TO TAKE MEDICINES ONLY FOR THE TIME BEING, THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED THE REMAINING CASH AVAILABLE WIT H HIM AMOUNNTING RS. 6 LAKH IN HIS SB A/C MAINTAINED WITH NAINITAL BANK LTD. ON 18.06.2004. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS THE PREVIOUSLY WITHDRAWN CASH IN HAND WI TH THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS RE-DEPOSITED BY HIM AGAIN IN HI S SB A/C MAINTAINED WITH NAINITAL BANK LTD. THE LD. AR SUBMI TTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED UPON HIS MERE PRESUMPTION, SURMISES, CONJECTURE AND GUESS WO RK ONLY AND AS SUCH NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ADDUCED, BROUGHT OR EVER PLACED ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL WHICH COULD CONFIRM, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN HAND PRIOR TO ITS REDEPOSIT OF THE SAME IN HIS SB A/C. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO FILED AND PLACE ON RECORDS THE HOSPITALIZATION PAPE RS AND THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF HIS WIFE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT AS THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT COULD NOT BE I.T.A. 373 & 668/D/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 5 SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED, THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT (A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN T HE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR THAT DUE TO THE SERIOUS NATURE OF THE AI LMENT OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO KEEP LARGE AMOUNT OF CASH AT HOME AT ALL TIMES. THE ASSESSEE IS A SAL ARIED EMPLOYEE AND HE HAD TO ARRANGE A LOAN TO MEET THE MEDICAL EX PENSES OF HIS WIFE ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUC ED DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE LOAN TAKEN AS WELL AS T HE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF HIS WIFE. ALTHOUGH, A PERSON MAY NOT KE EP HUGE AMOUNTS OF CASH UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT GIV EN THE NATURE OF THE AILMENT AND THE EXPENSES REQUIRED FOR TREATMENT, THE SAME IN VERY MUCH JUSTIFIED. THE AO HAS NOT BEE N ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY INCRIMINATING FACT THAT WOULD D ISPROVE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT IS OUR CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 2 BEING CONSEQ UENTIAL IS ALSO ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 3 BEING PREMATURE IS DISM ISSED. I.T.A. 373 & 668/D/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 6 GROUND NO. 4 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS NOT ADJUDIC ATED UPON AND IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 7. AS FAR AS I.T.A. NO. 668, FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IS CONCERNED, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR THAT AD MITTEDLY, THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS . 8. IN TERMS OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, F. NO. 279/MISC./142/2007-ITJ(PT.) READ WITH SECTION 268 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THIS APP EAL BY THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN OR SHOULD NOT HA VE BEEN PRESSED BY THE REVENUE. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. 373 & 668/D/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 7 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) VICE PRESIDENT J UDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 30 TH MAY, 2016 GS COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 4. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR