Sh. Puesh Gupta, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 405/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5683 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPALI CHANDRA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 405/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ) PUESH GUPTA, 43/1, RAIPUR ROAD, CIVIL LINES, NEW DELHI PAN: AAEPG4363L VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R S SINGHVI, CA REVENUE BY: SMT DEEPALI CHANDRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 23/04/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 2 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 8 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A. M. 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - XXXIII, NEW DELHI DATED 28.10.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 0 4000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH SEIZED INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE CASH. 1.1 THAT WHILE PARTLY RS. 50000/ - ADMITTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CASH SEIZED EXPLAINED OUT OF RS. 254000/ - SEIZED THE LD CIT(A) COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE BASIS OF ARISING AT THIS AMOUNT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT ASSESSEE APPELLANT IS AN INDIV IDUAL WHO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.09.2011 SHOWING INCOME OF RS 3022840/ - IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 21.1.2011 O N DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL GROUP OF CASES. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME CHARGEAB LE TO TAX UNDER THE HEADING SALARY, INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. PAGE | 2 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE CASH OF RS. 2, 54, 000/ WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE CASH. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT CASH FOUND IS OUT OF THE PAST SAVINGS AND BELONGING TO THE MINOR CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THEM AS GIFT FROM RELATIVES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS FROM PATERNAL GRANDPARENTS AND MATERNAL GRANDPAR ENTS AND RELATIVES ETC . THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BELIEVE THE SAME. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE CASH FOUND WITH HIM THE SAME IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENT TO THAT HE PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT ON 25/3/2013 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 32,76,840/ . 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT A WHO VIED ORDER DATED 28/10/2014 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2.04 LACS. HE GRANTED RELIEF OF RS. 5 0, 000/ . THEREFORE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AS SESSEE IS BELONGING TO ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE DS GROUP. THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND SHOWING SUBSTANTIAL INCOME. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE CASH IS FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE BELONGS TO THE MINOR CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WER E AGED 17 YEARS AND 16 YEARS RESPECTIVELY. THEY RECEIVED THIS SUM FROM RELATIVES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AS GIFT. THE LD. AO LOOKING AT THE FAMILY SIZE AND STATUS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE ABOVE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS EXPLAINED. 6. THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 21/1/2011 CASH OF RS . 2.54 LACS WAS FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE R ESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT BELONGS TO HIS MINOR CHILDREN NAMELY RIYA WHO IS 17 YEARS OLD AND KANNAV GUPTA WHO IS 16 YEARS OLD. ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 3 022840/ . FURTHER CASH OF RS . 22 , 77, 000/ PAGE | 3 WAS ALSO FOUND FROM THE OTHER ADDRESSES OF THE GROUP. LOOKING TO THE SIZE AND STATUS OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT WHEN THE CHILDREN REACHING AT THE AGE OF 16 - 17 YEARS WOULD NOT HAVE ACCUMULATED A SUM OF RS. 1.25 LAKHS EACH ON VARIOUS BI RTHDAYS AND OTHER SOCIAL OCCASIONS. AS ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED POSSESSION OF RS. 2.54 LACS BETWEEN TWO CHILDREN WHO ARE ALMOST ON THE AGE OF MAJORITY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE LOOKING AT THE AGE OF THE CHILDREN AND FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE REVERSE THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2.54 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 2 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 8 . - S D / - - S D / - ( AMIT SHUKLA ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 2 2 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 8 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI