Sh. Ram Avatar Bansal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4094/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6755 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAM AVATAR BANSAL
• Keywords: Source of fund; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4094/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 RAM AVATAR BANSAL, VS. ITO, WARD 37(1) C-2/23, WEST ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI PITAMPURA, DELHI 110 034 (PAN: AAIPB0755D) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAM AVATAR BANSAL, (ASSESSEE) REVENUE BY : SH. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.5.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-20, NEW DELHI RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND NOT MAINTAINABLE OR THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE ASSESSES HAS EXPLAINED SOURCE OF FUNDS OF RS. 38,57,500/- IN THE FIRST APPEARANCE WHICH BELONGS T O MY 2 MOTHER AS FIRST APPLICANT IN JOINT SB A/C WITH UCO BANK OF KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-LL0015 REGARDING CASH DEPOSI TED IN VARIOUS DATES. 3. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVI DED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSES. NO REGISTER ED NOTICE WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSES WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 38,31,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT AFTER PROVID ING WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS ON 20/12/2013. 4. OUT OF TOTAL ALLEGED SUM OF RS. 38,31,000/--, RS . 18,94,000/-- WAS RECEIVED FROM SMT. SHEELA JAIN AS PART PAYMENT AS ADVANCE AGAINST PROPERTY OUT OF RS. 30,94,000/-- AND RS. 19,37,000/- WAS ADVANCE AG AINST ANOTHER PROPERTY FROM SH. O.P. SANGWAN AS PART PAYM ENT OF RS.42,00,000/-. THE LD. ASSESSEE OFFICER WROTE CONF IRMATORY LETTER TO THE CONCERNED BUYERS WHO REPLIED ACCORDIN GLY. SUBSEQUENTLY THE UNDERSIGNED HAS REPAID THE SAME TO THE BUYERS FOR BUYING PEACE OF MIND AND AVOID LITIGATIO N. 5. THAT THE APPLICANT MAY BE PERMITTED TO ADD MORE POINTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSE HIMSELF ADM ITTED AND STATED THAT THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIAT ED THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE DRAW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ALONGWITH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY HIM CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 50 AN D HE HAS ALSO CERTIFIED THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ITO/CIT(A) DURING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE. HE ALSO DRAW MY ATTEN TION TOWARDS THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. SHEELA JAIN AND SH. O.P. SANGWAN. HE ALSO DRAW MY ATTENTI ON TOWARDS THE PHOTOCOPY OF ITR SMT. SHEELA JAIN AS WELL AS SH. O. P. SANGWAN FOR ESTABLISHING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT BOTH THE CREDITORS HAVE ALSO FILED THEIR CONFI RMATIONS REGARDING CREDITING THE AMOUNT AS WELL AS ITS SUPPORTING EVID ENCE FOR RETURNING BACK THE MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND, THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT ADDITION IN DISPUTE MAY BE DELETED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM, BUT HE COULD NOT AVAIL T HE SAME. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE UPHELD. 4 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES ALONGWITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 50 IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL BETWE EN RA BANSAL AND SMT. SHEELA JAIN; COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL BETWEEN RA BANSAL AND SH. OM PRAKASH SANGAWA; COPY OF ITR OF SMT. SHEELA JAIN AND ITS BANK STATEMENT WITH PNB SECTOR-7, ROHINI, NEW DELHI 85; PHOTOCOPY OF ITR OF SH. OP SANGWAN AND ITS BANK STATEMENTS WI TH ICICI BANK, RAJENDER NAGAR, AND ALLAHABAD, RAJENDER NAGAR, DELH I AND HIS WITHDRAWALS ACCOUNT IN HIS FIRM M/S MAHAN FIRE PROT ECTION BADDI (HP); PHOTOCOPIES OF LETTER WRITTEN BY ITO, WARD 3 7(1) TO THE BUYERS AND THEIR REPLIES SUBMITTED BY THEM IN DAK COUNTER OF DEPARTMENT; COPY OF TWO AFFIDAVITS AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT( A)-XX, DELHI OF SMT. SHEELA JAIN AND SH. OP SANGWAN REGARDING REPAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAKEN AGAINST PROPERTIES; COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF SH. RA BANSAL HDFC BANK, RA BANSAL HUF ICICI BANK, AND HIS FIRM K D SONS WITH ICICI BANK AND IMG VYSYA BANK LTD.; COPY OF ITR OF RA BANSAL HUF PROP. M/S KD SONS FOR AY 2011-12 AND PHGOTOCOPY OF SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY OF SH. RA BANSAL R/O C-2/23, WEST ENCL AVE, PITAMPURA, DELHI 34. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CERTIFIED THAT ALL T HE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ITO/CIT(A) DURING T HE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THEM. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED 5 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. SHEELA JAIN AND SH. O .P. SANGAWAN AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCES ESTABLISHING THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE CREDITORS. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED TH E DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH IS AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WHICH WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO THE AO HAS NO OPPO RTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAME. FOR EXAMPLE, THE AFFIDAVIT FROM B OTH THE PARTIES/CREDITORS REGARDING REPAYMENT ON ADVANCE RE CEIVED AGAINST PROPERTY. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE OWNERSHIP PROOF O F PROPERTIES IN THE CASE OF RAM AVTAR BANSAL R/O C-2/23, WEST ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, DELHI 34 FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 8.12.2016 BEFOR E THE BENCH I.E. TELEPHONE BILL OF C-2/23, WEST ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI -34; ELECTRICITY BILL OF C-2/23, WEST ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA , NEW DELHI -34; WATER BILL OF C-2/23, WEST ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI -34; REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER SHOP ESTABLISHMENT O F ACT, 1954 OF 1135/11, NAIWALA KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI 5; STATEME NT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.3.2011 OF M/S RA BANSAL & CO.; COPY OF GPA OF HOUSE C-2/23, WEST ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, FOR RA BANSAL.; TELEPHONE BILL OF PROPERTY BEARING NO. 1135/11, NAIWALA KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI 5 WHICH ALSO NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, IN M Y CONSIDERED VIEW, THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-EXAMINATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO, HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SET AS IDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS AND AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. 6 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/02/2017 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 02/02/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES