Pankaj Arora, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

ITA 4253/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0250 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.4253/DEL/2018 AY: 2007-08 I.T.A. NO.4254/DEL/2018 AY: 2009-10 SH. PANKAJ ARORA, J-1839, C.R. PARK, NEW DELHI-110019 PAN-BBOPS2128D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-23(2), NEW DELHI [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY: SH. R.S. SINGHVI, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SH. S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 20 02 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 0 3 2019 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, A.M: THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 28.2.2018 AND 21.3.2018 OF TH E LD. CIT(A)-31, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVE LY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO. 4253/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2007-08) 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 16 TH JULY, 2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. ITA NO. 4253/DEL/2018 & ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 2 1,08,010/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 14143( 1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 14 7 / 148 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF IN COME TAX (INVESTIGATION) UNIT-V, NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, REQUESTED THE AO TO TREA T THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED EARLIER AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,97,452/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 RELATI NG TO IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSIT AND SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4,97,452/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED EL ABORATE SUBMISSION BASED ON WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMA ND REPORT FROM THE AO. EVEN AFTER SEVERAL REMINDERS, THE AO DID NOT SUBMIT ANY REMAND REPORT. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A), ON THE BASIS OF MATE RIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE U PHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.6. I CONCLUDE THAT THE AO HAS TREATED THE MATTER OF S ENDING THE REPORT VERY CAUSALLY. SINCE THE AO'S REPORT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIV ED TILL DATE, I AM PROCEEDING TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER BASED ON JUDICIAL PRINCIPLE. THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. IN VIEW OF THE FA CT THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMATION(S) OF THIRD PARTIES, AND EVEN THE SOUR CE/CONFIRMATION(S) OF CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED/PROVIDED, SUCH INVESTMENTS/CREDITS HAVE REMAINED NOT EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY. MERELY PRODU CING SOME AGREEMENTS OF TRANSACTIONS DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER THE AMOUNTS WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE NAMED PERSONS, AND WHAT WAS THE SOURCE THEREOF. AN EXAMINATION OF FACTS AT HAND CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN BUYING AND SELLING PROPERTIES IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNER. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO IN THE BUSINESS OF BEING A BUILDER. I FIND THAT THE AP PELLANT IS DEPOSITING CASH IN BANK ACCOUNTS AS AND WHEN CHEQUES NEEDED TO BE ISSUED. F URTHER, THERE ARE CREDITS APPEARING IN BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH REMAIN UNEXPLAINED . SIMILARLY, SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT(S) REMAINS UNEXPLAINE D. THE APPELLANT IS' PRESENTING A PROPOSITION THAT TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT THROUGH B ANKING CHANNELS ARE TO BE TREATED ITA NO. 4253/DEL/2018 & ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 3 AS EXPLAINED. ROUTING A TRANSACTION THROUGH BANK, I N ITSELF, DOES NOT GIVE A CERTIFICATE OF THE TRANSACTION BEING GENUINE. THE SOURCE OF CRE DITS (AND CASH DEPOSITS) HAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. IN FACT, THE APPELLANT HAS CR EATED BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS BY DEPOSIT OF CASH AND BY RECEIVING UNEXPL AINED CREDITS, WHENEVER THE APPELLANT WANTED TO MAKE PAYMENTS/INVESTMENTS (BY I SSUE OF CHEQUE OR DD). THE APPELLANT DID THIS SO THAT THE INVESTMENTS/EXPENDIT URE IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE/INCURRED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. EVEN OTHERWISE THE EXPLANATION OF APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED IT HAD SOLD CERTAIN PROPERTY ON WHICH SHORT CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS.78,500/- HAD ARI SEN. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAS BEEN NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE DERIVED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ONLY. THIS ALSO ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCLOSE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IT HAS ADMITTED NOW. THUS THE CONCLUSION MADE BY THE AO THAT THE CREDITS IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT HAVE REMAINED UNEXPLAINED IS VALID. I ALSO FIND THAT THE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY - SH. PANKAJ SAPRA, SMT. DAYA SAPRA(MOTHER OF SH. PANKAJ SAPRA) SH. S.N. SAPRA (ALSO KNOWN AS SH. SOM NATH SAPRA/ARORA, FATHER OF SH. PANKAJ SAPR A) HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY INVOLVED IN SUCH BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND CREDITS/CA SH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. 5. IN FINAL ANALYSIS, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE AO -(I) WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AMO UNTING TO RS. 4,97,452/- HOWEVER THE AO WILL VERIFY AND GRANT RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY, AS (AND IF) HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THIS WILL AVOID DOUBLE ADDITION. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1(I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S. 148 WITHOUT PROPE R APPRECIATION OF FACTS, RECORDING OF SATISFACTION AND REQUISITE APPROVAL IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 151 AND CTT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF AO. (II) THAT THERE IS NO CASE OF ANY INCOME ESCAPING ASSESS MENT AND WHOLE BASIS OF REASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2(I). THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 4,97,452/- IS HIGHLY ARBI TRARY AND CONTRARY TO FACTS ON RECORD. (III) THAT VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS ARE INTER RELATED AND TH ERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT SAME REPRESENT UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OR UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT. (IV) THAT IMPUGNED ADDITION IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND UNJ USTIFIED AND MERELY BASED ON PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTE R OR FORGO ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. THAT ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTI FIED ON FACTS AND SAME ARE BAD IN LAW. ITA NO. 4253/DEL/2018 & ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 4 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REF ERRING TO PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE C OPY OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 26 TH MARCH, 2013 AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROPER SANCTION OR APPROVAL OBTAINED AS CLAUSE NO. 3 OF THE SAID NOTICE IS BLANK. THEREFORE, FROM WHOM THE AO HAS OB TAINED PERMISSION IS NOT KNOWN. REFERRING TO PAGE NO. 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK, H E SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE AO SHOWS THAT THERE IS CAS H DEPOSIT OF RS.4,97,452/-. REFERRING TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINT AINED WITH VIJAYA BANK AND HDFC BANK ACCOUNT, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BEN CH TO THE VARIOUS ENTRIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,97,452/- AS ALLEGED BY THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,97,430/- DURING THE YEAR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,70,900/- WAS DEPOSITED IN C HEQUES AND THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS ONLY RS. 226530/-. THEREFORE, THE REASO NS RECORDED BY THE AO ARE VAGUE AND NOT ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND B ASED ON REPORTS OF INVESTIGATION WING WITHOUT ANY INDEPENDENT APPLICAT ION OF MIND. THEREFORE, ON THIS GROUND ITSELF, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING SHO ULD BE QUASHED. 6. EVEN ON MERIT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE ITEM WISE DEPOSIT MAD E IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,000/- DEPOSI TED ON 27.07.2006 WAS OUT OF THE CHEQUE PAYMENT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE O F PROPERTY BEARING NO. 547, BLOCK-D, GALI NO. 5, SANGAM VIHAR, NEW DELHI. SIMILARLY THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,00,000/- ON 18.4.2006 WAS OUT OF ADVANCE AMOU NT AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. T HE OTHER DEPOSITS ARE EITHER THE RENTAL INCOME OR OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY NO. 547. THUS THE AMOUNTS STAND FULLY EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 7. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIE D ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). ITA NO. 4253/DEL/2018 & ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 5 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITY BELOW. I FIND T HE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,97,452/- RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND THEREAFTER MAD E ADDITION OF RS. 4,97,452/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. I FIND THE LEARNE D CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO, THE REASONS OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPR ODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS COMPLETE NON APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE AO WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS AND HE HAS NOT VERIFIED THE FACTS PROPERLY AND THE REOPENING WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING. F URTHER THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE FULLY EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 9. I FIND FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UN DER SECTION 148 SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER, CLAUSE 3 OF THE NOTICE READS AS UNDER:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 . 3. THIS NOTICE IS BEING ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING THE NECESSARY SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ............./THE CENTRA L BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. 10. SIMILARLY, A PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTA INED WITH VIJAYA BANK ACCOUNT NO. 004427, COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED A T PAGE NO. 25 AND 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SHOWS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,00 0/- WAS BY WAY OF CLEARING OF CHEQUE NO. 719443 AND NOT CASH DEPOSIT. IF THE S AME IS EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL DEPOSITS MADE DURING THE YEAR FROM THE TWO BA NK ACCOUNTS THEN THERE IS NO SUCH CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,97,452/- IN THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUME NT OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASONS RECORDED ARE EITHER VAGUE REASONS OR NOT BASED ON ITA NO. 4253/DEL/2018 & ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 6 ANY APPLICATION OF MIND. IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF EACH DEPOSIT MADE BOTH IN CASH AS WELL AS IN CHEQUE AND THEREFORE, EVEN ON MERIT ALSO NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDI TION. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10) 11. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE AO REOPEN ED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVES TIGATION WING THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 36,82,199/- IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 14,33,000/- AFTER ACCEPTING THE REM AINING AMOUNT AS EXPLAINED. 12. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED AN AMOU NT OF RS. 13,00,000/- AND DELETED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,33,000/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.4. I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS AT HAND. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SYSTEMICALLY CARRIED BUSINESS AS A BUILDER/ TRANSAC TING IN REAL CALAIS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE(S) WERE NOT PRODUCE D BEFORE ME (OR EVEN BEFORE THE AO). THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO PRODUCE CERTAIN DO CUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOU NT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. I N VIEW OF THE FACT THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMA TION(S) OF THIRD PARTIES, AND EVEN THE SOURCE/CONFIRMATION(S) OF CREDITS IN BANK ACCOU NTS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED/PROVIDED SUCH INVESTMENTS/CREDITS HAVE REM AINED NOT EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY. MERELY PRODUCING SOME AGREEMENTS OF TRANSACTIONS DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER THE AMOUNTS WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE NAMED PERSONS, AND WHAT WAS THE SOURCE THEREOF. AS SUCH, THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE SOUGHT TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT WORTHY OF ADMISSION. THE SAME IS THEREFORE NOT ADMITTED. AN EXAMINATION OF FACTS AT HAND CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN BUYING AND SELLING PROPERTIES IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNE R. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO IN THE BUSINESS OF BEING A BUILDER. I FIND THAT THE APPELL ANT IS DEPOSITING CASH IN BANK ACCOUNTS AS AND WHEN CHEQUES NEEDED TO BE ISSUED. S IMILARLY, SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT(S) REMAINS UNEXPLAINE D. THE APPELLANT IS PRESENTING A PROPOSITION THAT TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS A RE TO BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED. ROUTING A TRANSACTION THROUGH BANK, IN ITSELF, DOES NOT GIVE A CERTIFICATE OF THE TRANSACTION BEING GENUINE. THE S OURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS HAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. IN FACT, THE APPELLANT HAS CR EATED BALANCE IN THE BANK ITA NO. 4253/DEL/2018 & ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 7 ACCOUNTS BY DEPOSIT OF CASH WHENEVER THE APPELLANT WANTED TO MAKE PAYMENTS/INVESTMENTS (BY ISSUE OF CHEQUE OR DD). TH E APPELLANT DID THIS SO THAT THE INVESTMENTS/EXPENDITURE IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE/ INCURRED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. I ALSO FIND THAT THE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF TH E FAMILY - SH. PANKAJ SAPRA, SMT. DAYA 5APRA(MOTHER OF SH PANKAJ SAPRA) SH. S.N. SAPR A (ALSO KNOWN AS SH. SORIA NATH SAPRA/ARORA, FATHER OF SH. PANKAJ SAPRA) HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY INVOLVED IN SUCH BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND CREDITS/CASH DEPOSITS IN TH EIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. 5. I FIND THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AND IN THE REMAND REPORT (AS RECEIVED DROVE) REMAIN UNCONTROVERTED. T HE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CREDIBILITY OR CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE PERSONS FROM WHOM CASH HAS BEEN STATED TO BE RECEIVED IN THE ICICI BANK A/C NO . 0131101505014. I ALSO FIND THAT GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHE D. I HOLD, ON THE BASIS OF MY ANALYSIS AS AFORESAID, THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT REMAIN UNEXPLAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13,00,000/-, OUT OF THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO AT RS. 14,33,000/-. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THA T THE FOLLOWING ENTRIES IN THE ICICI BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENT CASH RECEIPTS ALREADY DISCLO SED IN THE RELEVANT ITR, VIZ- 13. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. (I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S. 148 WITHOUT PROPE R APPRECIATION OF FACTS, RECORDING OF SATISFACTION AND REQUISITE APPROVAL IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 151 AND CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF AO. (II) THAT THERE IS NO CASE OF ANY INCOME ESCAPING A SSESSMENT AND WHOLE BASIS OF REASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2(I). THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A)REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 13,00,000/- IS HIGH LY ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO FACTS ON RECORD. (II) THAT ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE FULLY CORROBORATED AND SUPPORTED FROM BANK STATEMENTS AND EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO CASE OF ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. (III) THAT VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS ARE INTER RELATED AND THE RE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT SAME REPRESENT UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OR UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT. (IV) THAT IMPUGNED ADDITION IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND UNJU STIFIED AND MERELY BASED ON PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR FORGO ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. THAT ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIF IED ON FACTS AND SAME ARE BAD IN LAW. ITA NO. 4253/DEL/2018 & ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 8 14. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. A PERU SAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO SHOWS THAT CLAUSE 3 OF THE NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 148 IS AGAIN BLANK AND IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHETHER THE AO HAS OBTAIN ED APPROVAL FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES AND IF SO FROM WHOM. EVEN OTHERW ISE A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THE FOLLOWING RECONCILI ATION STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE VARIOUS DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. STATEMENT SHOWING CASH, CREDIT IN ICICI BANK A/C NO . 031101505014 A.Y. 2009-10 DATE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. ADDITION UPHELD BY CIT(A) DETAILS 21.04.2008 100,000 100,000 SECURITY MONEY DEPOSIT RECEIVED FROM TENANT (PAPER BOOK PAGE 10-12) 25.05.2008 100,000 100,000 RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF AGREEMENT TO SELL OF PROPERTY NO. 2, SANGAM VIHAR (PAPER BOOK PAGE 22) 02.06.2008 45,000 - REQUISITE RELIEF TO BE GIVEN BY A.O. AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AS DIRECTED BY CIT(A) 04.06.2008 25,000 25,000 CONTRA CASH DEPOSIT FROM WITHDRAWAL 18.06.2008 200,000 200,000 RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF AGREEMENT TO SELL OF PROPERTY NO. 2, SANGAM VIHAR (PAPER BOOK PAGE.) 22.07.2008 230,000 230,000 RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF AGREEMENT TO SELL OF PROPERTY NO. 2, SANGAM VIHAR (PAPER BOOK PAGE) 26.08.2008 100,000 100,000 RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PROPERTY BEARING KHASRA NO. 1417 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 32) 03.09.2008 200,000 200,000 RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PROPERTY BEARING KHASRA NO. 1417 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 25.) 08.09.2008 8,000 - REQUISITE RELIEF TO BE GIVEN BY A.O. AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AS DIRECTED BY CIT(A) 24.09.2008 150,000 150,000 RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PROPERTY BEARING KHASRA NO. 1417 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 36) 25.09.2008 50,000 50,000 RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PROPERTY BEARING KHASRA NO. 1417 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 36) 08.12.2008 50,000 - REQUISITE RELIEF TO BE GIVEN BY A.O. AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AS DIRECTED BY CIT(A) 22.12.2008 25,000 25,000 CONTRA CASH DEPOSIT FROM WITHDRAWAL 21.02.2009 120,000 120,000 ADVANCE RECEIVED BACK AGAINST CANCELLATION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT OF PROPERTY BEARING NO. K- 19/1489 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 42 - ) ITA NO. 4253/DEL/2018 & ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 9 12.03.2009 30,000 - REQUISITE RELIEF TO BE GIVEN BY A.O. AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AS DIRECTED BY CIT(A) TOTAL 1,433,000 1,300,000 15. SINCE NEITHER THE AO NOR THE CIT(A) HAS VERIFIE D ALL THESE DEPOSITS ALONGWITH VARIOUS SALE DEEDS OR AGREEMENT TO SELL O F PROPERTIES ETC., I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE SAME AND IF HE FOUND CORRECT THEN DELETE THE ADDITION. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 16. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 4253/DEL/2018 IS ALLOWED AND ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.03.2019. SD/ - [R.K. PANDA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29.02.2019 SH ITA NO. 4253/DEL/2018 & ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 10 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT AS SISTANT REGISTRAR SL. NO. PARTICULARS DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION 21 .02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 4. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 5. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 6. FINAL ORDER RECEIVED AFTER PRONOUNCEMENT 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILES GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER 11. DATE OF UPLOADING 29 .0 3 .2019