Royal Construction Co., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

ITA 4089/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1246 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SURAJ KUMAR
• Section: 69; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 4089/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year 2014-15 Royal Construction Co., Royal Construction Company, L-166, DLF, Capital Green, Moti Nagar, New Delh-110015 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-62(4), New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEFR7289L Assessee by : Sh. Suraj Kumar, CA & Sh. Akarsh Garg, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.10.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi dated 28.03.2018. 2. The assessee filed return of income on 17.11.2014 declaring income at Rs.1,25,450/-. The case has been selected for scrutiny on the basis of “Transactions with persons located in a jurisdiction notified in Section 94A”. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to submit the details of transactions with persons located in a jurisdiction notified in Section 94A for which the assessee explained by the way of an affidavit that he has not entered into any such transactions. 3. Later, the Assessing Officer has brought to tax, the quantum of the credit entry in the bank account to tax u/s 69 of ITA No. 4089/Del/2018 Royal Construction Company 2 Rs.74.26 lakhs being the difference between the amount of receipts in the bank statement and as per the Income Tax Return. 4. The explanation of the assessee before us is as under: Sl. No. Particulars Bank Credits(Rs.) (i) Bank deposits from Rajinder Singh (Partner) and his family members Rajinder Singh 14,00,000 Shallu 1,00,000 Deepak Chhilar 4,80,000 Anita 70,000 20,50,000 Others Arun Talwar 6,60,000 Dabas Construction Co. Prop. Bhupender Kumar 2,00,000 Mehtab Singh 5,00,000 13,60,000 34,10,000 (ii) Cash 11,76,000 (iii) Bank Intt. Recd 59,684 (iv) DD Cancellation 45,000 (v) FD Maturity 6,46,085 (vi) DSIDC 59,42,595 Total 1,12,79,364 5. All the confirmation, copy of ITRs and other details have been duly filed and no adverse inference could be brought on record by the revenue with regard to identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties namely, Rajinder Singh, Shallu, Deepak Chhilar, Anita, Arun Talwar, Bhupender Kumar and Mehtab Singh. The confirmation from DSIDC which could not be filed before the ld. CIT(A) has been produced before us as the confirmation has been received on 20.03.2018, the last day of ITA No. 4089/Del/2018 Royal Construction Company 3 hearing before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the same is being considered now. 6. Having gone through the entire documents and evidences filed, we hereby hold that no addition on account of the deposits u/s 69A is warranted in this case. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11/10/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Yogesh Kumar US) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 11/10/2022 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR