ITO, New Delhi V. Shri Mridul Chadda, New Delhi

ITA 4386/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 438620114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P CHANDRAKER
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE S H.G.D.AGARWAL , HON BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 4386/ DEL/201 1 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2008 - 09 ) ITO, WARD - 43(1), ROOM NO. - 407, MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 11000 1. (APPELLANT) VS MRIDUL CHADDA, O - 45, 2 ND FLOOR, SRINIWASPURI, NEW DELHI - 110065 (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. J.P.CHANDRAKER, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25 . 0 7 .201 1 OF THE CIT(A) - X XX , NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 200 8 - 0 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,28,822/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE NATURE AND CREDIT ENTRIES COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES . 2. NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER ON CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR. DR , IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 3 . THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF BIRLA SUNLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS. 7,86,203/ - BY WAY OF FILING ITS RETURN ON 24.07.2008. THE SAID RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) & 142( 1). THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY WA S 2 I.T.A .NO. - 4386 /DEL/201 1 REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION IN REGARD THERETO WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED AS PER AIR/CIB. T HE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO HAVE REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 23.11.2010, 08.12.2010 & 20.12.2010 EXPLAINING THE SAME, HOWEVER THE EX PLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND T O BE NOT SUFFICIENT BY THE AO AS CASH FLOW STATEMENT RECEIPT AND PAYMENT RECEIPTS WERE NOT FOUND TO BE MADE AVAILABLE . ACCORD INGLY THE ADDITIONS OF RS.11,91,275/ - AND RS. 12,28,822/ - WERE MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CAS H DEPOSITS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED ENTRIES RESPECTIVELY. 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF BIRLA SUNL IFE INSURANCE C O MPANY LTD. , H AVING SOURCE OF INCOME AS SALARY . IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMES FROM A REPUTED FA M ILY BACKGROUND AND HIS SPOUSE IS ALSO AN EARNING MEMBER WHO TOO IS WORKING FOR THE SAME CONCERN . THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.10,90,000/ - AND RS.1 ,38,822/ - HAVE BEEN MADE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE PAID BY CHEQUE AND AN ADDITION OF RS.9,01,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN KOTAK MAHINDRA B ANK (A/C - 244) WAS MADE IGNORING THE F ACT THAT THESE CASH DEPOSITS WAS MADE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS. SIMILARLY THE ADDITION OF RS.2,90,275/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN KOTAK MAHIND RA BANK (A/C - 913 ) HAS BEEN MADE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE S SPOUSE WAS ALSO EARNING. THE AS SESSEE EXPLAI NED THIS THROUGH LEDGER ACCOUNT/ CASH BOOK AND COLLATED THE SAME WITH THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THESE EVIDENCES WERE REMANDED TO THE AO WHO REFUSED TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND M E RELY OBJECTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A), SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. THE ASSESSEE CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME FURTHER JUSTIFIED THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH FROM JOINT ACCOUNT BY PREPARING THE CASH BOOK. THE CIT(A) TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY A NEW CA WHO HAD PUT IN HIS FIRST APPEARANCE AND WAS MAKING A DEBUT IN T HIS FIELD AND THE AO DESPITE HAVING ALL THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM ALL ALONG 3 I.T.A .NO. - 4386 /DEL/201 1 REFUSED TO LOOK INTO DETAILS PROVIDED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND MERELY KEPT ISSUING NOTICE. CONSIDERING THE SAME THE CIT(A) CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: - 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, GROUNDS OF APPEAL WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON T HE REMAND REPORT. I HAVE DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH THE A O THOROUGHLY. THERE IS ONLY ONE DISPUTE OF ADDITION OF RS.12,28,822/ - THROUGH 2 BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. THE AR EXPLAINED THE CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH WITHDRAWALS IN THESE TWO ACCOUNTS BY SEPAR ATE CASH LEDGER ACCOUNT WHERE OPENING BALANCE IS TAKEN AT NIL. THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. THE CASH ACCOUNT OF 4 PAGES ARE ANNEXED TO THIS ORDER. THE BOLD FIGURES TOTALING TO RS.12,28,822/ - APPEARING IN THE LEDGE R ACCOUNTS ON THE CREDIT SIDES ARE CONSIDERED BY THE AO FOR ADDITION AS INTRODUCTION OF CASH. THE DR OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT IN THE CASH BOOK LEDGER SHOWS POSITIVE AVAILABILITY OF CASH AT HOME. THE AR IS YOUNG AND FIRST TIME APPEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN HIS CAREER WHO EXPLAINED LUCIDLY BEFORE ME, THE CASH TRANSACTIONS MADE BY APPELLANT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. CONSIDERING HIS EXPLANATION I AM FULLY SATISFIED THAT CASH DEPOSITS ARE SHOWN OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS BY THE ACCOUNT BY ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AND HENCE THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.12,28,822/ - STANDS EXPLAINED HUSBAND AND WIFE BOTH ARE WORKING. IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, HUSBAND WAS WORKING IN BIRLA SUNLIFE INSURANCE CO. AND WIFE WAS WORKING IN BIRLA SUNLIFE INSURANCE CO. AS COMMISSION AGENT. THEY ARE HAVING 2 DAUGHTERS OF AGE GROUP OF 4 - 5 YEARS. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.12,28,822/ - , AS SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE IS AVAILABLE FROM ATM WITHDRAWALS/ OTHER WITHDRAWALS AND OPENING BALANCE OF CASH IS ALSO TAKEN AT NIL. 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. SR DR PLACES RELIANCE UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER THE FINDING ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE JOINT CASH BOOK CONSISTING OF 4 PAGES ANNEXED WITH TH E IMPUGNED ORDER WERE NOT ASSAILED. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. SR. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WE HA V E ADDRESSED IN DETAIL IN THE EARLIER FACT OF THE ORDER , WE FIND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REB UTTAL ON FACTS ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE IN REGARD TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FROM THE ASSESSEE S WIFE WHO WAS ALSO AN EARNING MEMBER AND HAD MAINTAINED A JOINT FUNDS WITH HER HUSBAND AND THE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE FROM THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FUND DEPOSITED IN THE SPECIFIC BANK ACCOUNTS 4 I.T.A .NO. - 4386 /DEL/201 1 ALL OF WHICH STANDS UNASSAILED . IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. BEING SATISFIED BY THE REASONING AND FINDING THE SAME IS UPHELD. 7 . IN THE RESULT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPE AL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 7 T H OF OCTOBER 2014 . S D / - S D / - ( G.D.AGARWAL ) (DIVA SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 7 /1 0/2014 *AMIT KUMAR/SUBODH KUMAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI