DCIT, Circle- 2, Meerut V. Sanjay Bansal, Meerut

ITA 4500/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6451 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.S. RANA
• Keywords: Source of fund; Set aside
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCHES (CAMP AT MEERUT) BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4500/DEL./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16) DCIT, CIRCLE 2, VS. SHRI SANJAY BANSAL, MEERUT. 16, DEVNAR, TILAK ROAD, MEERUT. (PAN : AAOPB2343M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.S. KASHYAP, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI S.S. RANA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 16.01.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, DCIT, CIRCLE 2, MEERUT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.03.2018 PASSED BY LD. C IT (APPEALS), MEERUT QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 O N THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,03,71,450/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NO.4500/DEL./2018 2 INTRODUCTION OF UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL IGNORING THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FROM WHICH FRESH CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ONLY KEPT HARPING OVER THE ISSUE OF WITHDRAWALS BEING GREATER THAN THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED THUS LEADING THE A.O. T O DRAW AN INFERE3NCE THAT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS, FROM WHICH CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED, WAS INGENUINE AND UNAUTHENTIC. 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,15,459/- MADE BY A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIA BLE SUNDRY CREDITORS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM IN GETTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF SUNDRY CREDITORS VERIFI ED BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED FORM THE AUDIT REPORT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED CAPITAL OF RS.2,03,71,456/- DURING T HE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT. AO, FINDING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE INCREASE IN CAPITAL CONTRADICTORY, PROC EEDED TO HOLD THAT CAPITAL INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT OF RS.2,03,71,456/- IS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND MA DE ADDITION THEREOF U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHO RT THE ACT). AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.22,15,459/- U/S 68 OF T HE ACT ON THE ITA NO.4500/DEL./2018 3 GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HI S ONUS IN VERIFYING THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY ALLOWIN G THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. GROUND NO.1 5. PERUSAL OF PARA 4.1 AT PAGE 5 OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) APPARENTLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS DULY FILED AFFIDAVIT STATING ON OATH THAT HE HAS DULY FILED AU DITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, COPY OF ALL BANK STATEMENTS, COPY OF CA PITAL ACCOUNT, COPY OF TAX AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE AO AND NATURE O F ENTRIES WERE ALSO EXPLAINED. CIT (A), AFTER EXAMINING THE BANK STATEMENT OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS PERSONA L ACCOUNT, REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN TRA NSFERRED FROM CONSTRUCTION CONCERN TO INDIVIDUAL BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM WHICH THE FUNDS WERE TRANSFERRED BACK AS AND W HEN REQUIRED. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ITA NO.4500/DEL./2018 4 DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION AFTER VERIFY ING THE ENTRIES IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FROM SBI CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL SAVING ACCOUNT MAINTAINED W ITH STATE BANK OF INDIA. SO, GROUND NO.1 IS DETERMINED AGAINST TH E REVENUE. GROUND NO.2 6. SO FAR AS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.22,15,459/- BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS CONCERNED, AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE S OLE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS IN VERIFYING THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE PAYMENT TO THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES IN THE SUBS EQUENT YEARS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN AUDITED ONE AND HAD NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO. IT IS ALS O NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES RATHER ACCEPTED THE SAME AS IT IS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133 (6) TO 9 CREDITORS WERE SERV ED UPON THEM BUT 7 CREDITORS HAVE NOT REPLIED TILL THE DATE OF ASSES SMENT ORDER. SO, THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION ON THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THESE CREDITORS IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE CRED ITORS ARE REGULAR CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEY ARE PAID IN ROUT INE MANNER AND HE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE COPY OF LEDGER OF TWO YEA RS WITH COPY OF ITA NO.4500/DEL./2018 5 INVOICE DURING THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. SO, WHEN THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE PURCHASES AND ACCEPTED THE TRADING ACCOUNT BUT MADE ADDITION WITHOUT REJECTING THE TRADING RESULTS AND WITHOUT DISPUTING THE GENUINENESS OF TH E PURCHASES, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION AND GROUND NO.2 IS DETERMINED AGAINST THE REVENUE. 8. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 16 TH DAY OF JANUARY , 2019 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), MEERUT. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.