Shri Tara Rani Abrol, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Baraut

ITA 4233/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86877 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4233/DEL./2013 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 TARA RANI ABROL, VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, THROUGH L/H ANJANA SABHARWAL, WARD BARAUT. SD - 198, SHASTRI NAGAR, GHAZIABAD. [PAN: AFPPA 1937 C ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. K. SAMPATH, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARIN G : 08.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 .03.2016 ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), MEERUT DATED 25.03.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE INCOME AS RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND MADE THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAD ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS.1063000 / - AS CASH DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENT DATES IN BANK AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WHICH OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES RATHER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TREATED AS CAPITAL TO THE APPELLANT. ITA NO. 4233/DEL./2013 2 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.10,63,000/ - ALONG WITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CALLED FOR COMMENTS FROM THE AO. THE AO HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. IN SPITE OF THIS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDIT ION OF RS.10,63,000/ - WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS AND EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT BREATHED HER LAST ON 08.01.2008 OWING TO HER SUFFERINGS FRO M CANCER. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF A HOUSE. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE DECEASED APPELLANT WAS THE ONLY DAUGHTER OF HER FATHER WHO WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF GOLDSMITH AT UDHAMPUR (J&K) AND AFTER HIS DEATH, THE DECEASED APPEL LANT INHERITED ORNAMENTS AND CASH LEFT BY HER FATHER. THE DECEASED APPELLANT HAD ALSO SOME JEWELLERY AS STRIDHAN. ALL THESE ASSETS WERE SOLD BY THE HUSBAND OF DECEASED ASSESSEE IN F.Y. 2004 - 05 TO 2005 - 06 TO THE KNOWN PERSONS AND IT WAS OUT OF THE SAID SALE PROCEEDS OF JEWELLERY AND CASH, WHICH WAS SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN ITA NO. 4233/DEL./2013 3 THE DEPOSIT OF RS.11,34,000/ - . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES. HE , THEREFORE, R EQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MAY BE DELETED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE CONTRARY, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE WITH US SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AT PAGE 2 & 3 PARA 4.1 TO 4.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, PARA NOS. 4.1 TO 4.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4.1. GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING AN ADDITION OF R S.11,34,000/ - BEING CASH DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENT DATE IN BANK ACCOUNT TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 4.2. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO NOTED THAT RS.11,34,000/ - HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH PNB, GHAZIABAD. WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED AND THE LEGAL HEIR IS NOT IN A POSITION TO CLARIFY THE MATTER. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT PARTIALLY REPRESENTED SALE PR OCEED OF A HOUSE SOLD IN F.Y. 1998 - 99 FOR RS.1,95,000/ - . AS REGARDS THE BALANCE, IT W A S EXPLAINED THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE SH. LUDER MANI HAD BEEN A GOLDSMITH OWNING A SHOP AT UDHAMPUR (J&K). IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT GOLD/SILVER ORNAMENTS WAS INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE. BESIDES, SHE ALSO HAD PERSONAL JEWELLERY (STRIDHAN), THESE WERE SOLD BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN F.Y. 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06. THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF CASH WAS EXPLAINED AND IT COULD NOT BE TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SU BMISSIONS WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO AS THE CONSTITUTED ADDITIONAL ITA NO. 4233/DEL./2013 4 EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. A REPORT WAS GIVEN BY THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 22.02.2010. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SALE PROCEED, AS PER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED, WAS RECEIVED BY FIVE C HEQUES DRAWN ON PNB IN 1999. SECONDLY, THE SALE WAS EFFECTED IN F.Y. 1998 - 99 WHEREAS THE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SUBSEQUENTLY, ANOTHER SUBMISSION WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE LEGAL HEIR CON FIRMING THE SUBMISSION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT (AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE), COPIES OF CHEQUES ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY, AND A CERTIFICATE THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A GOLDSMITH IN UDHAMPUR (ISSUED BY OFFICE BEARERS OF TRADE ORGANIZATION AT UDHAMPUR) HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. THESE WERE ALSO FORWARDED TO THE AO WHO HAS GIVEN HIS COMMENTS VIDE LETTER DATED 10.01.2013. WHILE REITERATING THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE EARLIER REPORT, IT HA S BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 4.3. THE FACTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IN VIEW OF THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY SOME CONSTRAINT S ON THE PART OF THE LEGAL HEIR IN FURNISHING EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DE POSITS IN BANK. THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE LEGAL HEIR IN HER AFFIDAVIT MAY BE CORRECT YET IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION AS IT IS TOO GENERAL IN NATURE. AS REGARDS THE EXPLANATION REGARDING SALE PROCEE D OF PROCEEDS, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW THE CASH DEPOSIT CAN BE EXPLAINED FROM SUCH PROCEEDS IF IT HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY CHEQUES. AS REGARDS THE EXPLANATION THAT THE DEPOSITS REPRESENT SALE PROCEEDS OF INHERITED ORNAMENTS AND STRIDHAN JEWELLERY, NO SALE BILLS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED WHICH WOULD E STABLISH THE VERACITY OF THE EXPLANATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TREATING THE CASH DEPOSIT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUSTAINED. 6. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER SPECIALLY PARA NO. 4.1 TO 4.3, REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NEED THOROUGH EXAMINATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO, FOR WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. THE EVIDENCES PERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT S FATHER HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ITA NO. 4233/DEL./2013 5 AUTHORITIES BELOW IN TRUE PERSPECTIVE, AS THE INHERITANCE OF PROPERTY OF DECEASED FATHER OF APPELLANT CANNOT BE RULED OUT WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY, AS THE DECEASED APPELLANT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN THE ONLY DAUGHTER OF HER FATHER. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SET ASIDE AND IS LIABLE TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING THOROUGH EXAMINATION ABOUT THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE APPELLANT SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN AND SUBSTANTIATE THE IMPUGNED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.03.2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( H.S. SIDHU ) (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 04.03.2016 *AKS/ - COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI