AMAR CHAND AGARWAL, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 420/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 42023114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DR DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: AMAR CHAND AGARWAL

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 420/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI AMAR CHAND AGARWAL 2/366, RAJA PARK JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 6 (1) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ACWPA 2443 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMAR CHAND AGARWAL- ASSESSEE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY: SHRI RAJ MEHRA, JCIT -DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27/10/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 /10/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)II, JAIPUR DATED 08-01-2013 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS . 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED SERIOUSLY IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 1,67 ,576/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CEASED LIABILITY SHOWN BY THE A PPELLANT IN THE NAME OF ABC INVESTMENT ITA NO. 420/JP/2013 SHRI AMAR CHAND AGARWAL VS. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), JAI PUR . 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED SERIOUSLY IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 90,3 23/- BEING THE AMOUNT ADDED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING AND EARNING INTEREST INCOME. IN THE B ALANCE SHEET, THERE WERE OUTSTANDING LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,67,576/- IN TH E NAME OF M/S. ABC INVESTMENT. ON QUESTION, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THA T HIS WIFE SMT. LATE SUMITRA DEVI AGARWAL WAS MURDERED ON 08-08-1997 AT PATNA. HER BALANCE OF RS. 1,67,576/- WAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED AM ONGST THREE LEGAL HEIRS I.E. ASSESSEE, SON AND DAUGHTER. THIS DEPOSIT WAS E NTERED IN THE BOOKS IN THE NAME OF M/S. ABC INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE GAVE EXPLANATION BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHO REJECTED THE SAME AND WIT HOUT THEIR BEING WRITTEN OFF, THEY GAVE TWO-FOLD FINDINGS. (I) IT IS A TRADING LIABILITY. (II) THE LIABILITY HAS CEASED TO EXIST U/S 41(1) D ESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS OUTSTANDING IN THE NAME OF M/S. AB C INVESTMENT 3.1 APROPOS SECOND GROUND, FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A VERY OLD PERSON AND DEPENDENT ON HIS SON IN ALL RESPECTS AN D REMAINS AT HOME. THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AND MAINTENANCE OF THE OLD ASSE SSEE ARE LOOKED AFTER BY HIS SON. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE'S DRAWINGS WERE R S. 20,000/- PER YEAR . ITA NO. 420/JP/2013 SHRI AMAR CHAND AGARWAL VS. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), JAI PUR . 3 HOWEVER, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 90,323/- IN THIS BEHALF. 4.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL WHO APPEARED IN PERSON. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THAT THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES HAVE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LIABILITY OF M/S. ABC INVESTMENT WAS T RADING LIABILITY AND AT THE SAME IT WAS OUTSTANDING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. S TILL IT WAS ASSUMED TO BE CEASED U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. THE ACTION OF THE L OWER AUTHORITIES IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. (1) CIT VS. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. , 236 ITR 518 (SC) 2. CIT VS. GOYAL M.G. GASES LTD., 321 ITR 437 (RAJ.) 3. CIT VS. SHREE PIPES LTD. ,301 ITR 240 (RAJ.) 4. CIT VS. SADUL TEXTILES LTD. 167 ITR 634 (RAJ.) 5. ITO VS. R/B. SETH MOOLCHAND NEMICHAND (P) LTD. 1 4 ITD 473 (JP () 6. CIT VS. CHETAN CHEMICALS (P) LTD. 267 ITR 770 (GUJ) 7. CIT VS. SMT. SITA DEVI JUNEJA, 325 ITR 593 (P& H) 8. CIT VS. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS LTD. 282 ITR 379 (MA D.) 9. NARAYANN CHETTIAR INDUSTRIES VS. ITO, 277 ITR 42 6 (MAD.) 10. CIT VS. SADEN VIKAS INDIA LTD., 320 ITR 538 (DE L.) ITA NO. 420/JP/2013 SHRI AMAR CHAND AGARWAL VS. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), JAI PUR . 4 5.1 APROPOS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT HE IS A VERY OLD PERSON AND DEPE NDENT ON HIS SON AND THERE WERE WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 20,000/- FOR THE YEAR . WITHOUT DISPUTING THIS FACT ON RECORD, NO BASIS HAS BEEN GIVEN TO EST IMATE THE ADDITION OF RS.90,323/-. 5.2 THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5.3 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR AS FROM THE RECORD IT DOES NOT EMERGE THAT LIABILITY OF ABC INVESTMENT IS A TRADING LIABILITY. IT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED THE SUCCESSION OF FUNDS AFTER THE DEMIS E OF ASSESSEE'S WIFE. BESIDES, IN ANY CASE LIABILITY IS NOT WRITTEN OFF A ND ON ASSUMPTION IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT HAS CEASED LIABILITY U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, BOTH THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES ARE NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS DELE TED. 5.4 APROPOS SECOND GROUND ALSO, I FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS VERY OLD AND TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON HIS SON WHO IS EARNING WELL AN D LOOKING AFTER THE FAMILY. THE ASSESSEE HAS INDEPENDENT WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 20,000/- IN THIS ITA NO. 420/JP/2013 SHRI AMAR CHAND AGARWAL VS. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), JAI PUR . 5 YEAR. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICAT ION IN ESTIMATING THE WITHDRAWALS OF THE ASSESSEE ANY FURTHER WHICH IS DE LETED. 6.0 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/10/2 015. SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (R.P.TOLANI) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 27 /10/ 2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI AMAR CHAND AGARWAL, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 6 (1), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A) 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.420/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR