ITO, Baghpat V. Sh. Shravan Singh Arora, New Delhi

ITA 4182/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1230 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHYAM LAL JAIN
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH G GG G : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI I.C.SUDHIR I.C.SUDHIR I.C.SUDHIR I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.4182/DEL/2010 4182/DEL/2010 4182/DEL/2010 4182/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2005 2005 2005 2005- -- -06 0606 06 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAUT. BARAUT. BARAUT. BARAUT. VS. VS. VS. VS. SHRI SHRAVAN SINGH ARORA, SHRI SHRAVAN SINGH ARORA, SHRI SHRAVAN SINGH ARORA, SHRI SHRAVAN SINGH ARORA, S/ S/S/ S/O SHRI LAXMAN SINGH, O SHRI LAXMAN SINGH, O SHRI LAXMAN SINGH, O SHRI LAXMAN SINGH, SQ SQSQ SQ- -- -4, MALL APARTMENT, 4, MALL APARTMENT, 4, MALL APARTMENT, 4, MALL APARTMENT, MALL ROAD, MALL ROAD, MALL ROAD, MALL ROAD, DELHI. DELHI. DELHI. DELHI. PAN : ABZPS7612L. PAN : ABZPS7612L. PAN : ABZPS7612L. PAN : ABZPS7612L. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL GAUTAM, DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHYAM LAL JAIN, ADVOCATE. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), MEERUT DATED 18 TH JUNE, 2010 FOR THE AY 2005-06. 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 4,17,805/- AND ` 10,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE LOAN FROM SHRI SATISH CHOPRA AND SMT.CHAND RANI RESPECTIVELY IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS REMAINED TOTALLY UNPROVED? THE AMOU NT, THEREFORE HAD RIGHTLY BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE I.T.ACT IN THE LIGHT OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION WHICH IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS:- (I) SHANKAR INDUSTRIES VS. CIT (CAL) 114 ITR 689. (II) CIT VS. BIJU PATNAIK (SC) 160 ITR 674. (III) ROSHAN DI HATTI VS. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938. ITA-4182/DEL/2010 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WITH REGARD TO LOAN OF ` 10 LAKHS FROM SMT.CHAND RANI, FOLLOWING EXPLANATION/EVIDENCES WERE PLACED BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A):- SHE IS MOTHER OF ASSESSEE. SHE IS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX TO THE SAME ITO HER AD OF RETURN, COMPUTATION, BALAN CE SHEET ETC. ARE FILED HER PAN AFQPC9836B SHE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS AND SOURCES OF INCOME. THE TRANSACTIO N IS THROUGH BANK. HER CREDITWORTHINESS GENUINENESS AND IDENTITY IS NOT CHALLENGED. 4. WITH REGARD TO SHRI SATISH CHOPRA, FOLLOWING EXPL ANATION WAS GIVEN:- THE DEPOSIT IS OLD ONE. PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED BY DEPT T. HE IS RESIDENT OF CANADA AND MAMA OF ASSESSEE. HIS PASSPORT AND CONFIRMATION IS FILED. HIS CREDITWORTHINESS, GENUINENESS AND IDENTITY IS NOT CHALLENGED. 5. SINCE THESE WERE FRESH EVIDENCES/EXPLANATION BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), HE FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURNISHED THE REMAND REPORT DATED 4 TH JUNE, 2010 IN WHICH HIS ONLY COMMENT WITH REGARD TO SMT.CHAND RANI WAS REPLY RECEIVED FROM LEGAL HEIR S H. PARTHA ARORA, CONFIRMING THE LOANS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE. (COPY ENC LOSED AS ANNEXURE E). WITH REGARD TO SHRI SATISH CHOPRA, NO COMMENT WAS GIVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT. ON THESE FACTS, LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MAINLY POINTING OUT THAT IN THE REMAND REP ORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EVIDEN CES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THI S POINT AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS R EJECTED. ITA-4182/DEL/2010 3 6. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 2 LACS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES? THE AMOUNT HAD RIGHTLY BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE I.T.ACT IN THE LIGHT OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION WHICH IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS :- (I) SUMIT DAYAL VS. CIT(SC) 214 ITR 801. (II) VASANTIBAI N.SHAH VS. CIT (BOM) 243 ITR 805. (III) SHREELEKHA BANERJEE & CO. VS. CIT (CAL) 232 IT R 112. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING:- THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BANK STATEMENT TO PROVE THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK I.E. RS.50,000/- WERE WITHDRAWN FROM HDFC BANK A/C NO.0191000159135 AND RS.1,45,000/- WER E WITHDRAWN FROM PNB SB A/C 35198 WHICH WAS DEPOSITED I N ABN AMRO BANK IN CASH ON 10.9.2004. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AMPLE EVIDENCE REGARDING THIS ENTRY, THE ADDI TION MADE IN DELETED. 8. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDING, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE EVIDENCES E XPLAINING THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT OF ` 2 LAKHS IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNE D CIT(A). THE SAME IS SUSTAINED AND GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS A LSO REJECTED. ITA-4182/DEL/2010 4 9. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ONLY ARGUME NT WHEREIN NO SPECIFIC RELIEF IS CLAIMED. THE SAME DOES NOT REQUI RE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( (( (I.C.SUDHIR I.C.SUDHIR I.C.SUDHIR I.C.SUDHIR) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 15.02.2013 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAUT. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAUT. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAUT. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAUT. 2. RESPONDENT : SHRI SHRAVAN SINGH ARORA, SHRI SHRAVAN SINGH ARORA, SHRI SHRAVAN SINGH ARORA, SHRI SHRAVAN SINGH ARORA, S/O SHRI LAX S/O SHRI LAX S/O SHRI LAX S/O SHRI LAXMAN SINGH, SQ MAN SINGH, SQ MAN SINGH, SQ MAN SINGH, SQ- -- -4, MALL APARTMENT, 4, MALL APARTMENT, 4, MALL APARTMENT, 4, MALL APARTMENT, MALL ROAD, DELHI. MALL ROAD, DELHI. MALL ROAD, DELHI. MALL ROAD, DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR