ITO, New Delhi V. Mrs. Lekshmi Vishwanath, New Delhi

ITA 4579/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 457920114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: PIYUSH KR KAMAL
• Keywords: Gift; Additional evidence; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4579/ DEL/ 2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4 579 / DEL/201 3 A.Y. : 20 10 - 11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 40(4), ROOM NO. 110, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI VS. MRS. LEKSHMI VISHWANATH F - 175/5, AADITYA APARTMENT, DILSHAD COLONY, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAKPV3978N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. GAURAV D U DEJA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. GAUTAM JAIN, CA & SH. PIYUSH KR. KAMAL, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 - 0 3 - 201 5 DATE OF ORDER : 2 0 - 0 3 - 201 5 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J M REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 16 . 5 .201 3 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - XXX , NEW DELHI P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT READ AS UNDER: - 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,81,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 4579/ DEL/ 2013 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO AO FOR SUBMISSION OF REMAND REPORT WHICH IS CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 15,81,000/ - OUT OF RS. 16,18,000/ - IN SAVING BANK AC COUNT WITHOUT FINDING NATURE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSIT AS LOAN OR GIFT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE SOURCE AND CAPACITY OF THE PERSON WHO HAS GIVEN THE CASH TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD, DELETE OR AMEND ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 2,28,696/ - ON 27.7.2010. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 16,18,000/ - IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH SBI, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI. 3.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS DEPOSIT IN HER ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT ALONGWITH FILING OF AFFIDAVIT, COPY OF BANK PASS BOOK AND COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE OF THE PERSON WHO MADE DEPOSIT IN HER ACCOUNT. THUS THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT AND IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO MADE THAT DEPOSIT , WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE . T HE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION / EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE V IDE HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.3.2013 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 4579/ DEL/ 2013 3 4. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSEESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER 16 . 5 .201 3 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESEE AND GAVE RELIEF OF RS. 15,80,000/ - BY DELETING THE SAME AND SUSTAINED THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 38,000/ - , OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 16,18,000/ - . 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 16 . 5 .201 3 , REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REITERATED ON THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE . 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE L D. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER AND SAME SHOULD BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16 . 5 .201 3 , WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL VERY CAREFULLY. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO SHOULD ENQUIRE AND INVESTIGATE S UCH THING AND BRING THE TRUTH IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. THESE FACTS ARE GIVEN TO THE AO AND AO SHOULD ACCEPT THE TRUTH IF HE CANNOT FIND ANYTHING CONTRARY TO IT. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT T HE A SSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.16,18,000 / - AS PER THE BANK ACCO UNT STATEMENT FROM ONE OF HIS FRIEND FROM MEGHALAYA MR. W. SUTONG . MR. W. SUTONG IS A C LASS - I CONTRACTOR OF MEGHALAYA PWD DEPARTMENT AND WAS ALSO NOT INCOME TAX ASSESSEE, ITA NO. 4579/ DEL/ 2013 4 AS HE WAS A TRIBAL MAN FROM MEGHALAYA AND HE IS EXEMPT ED FROM INCOME TAX U/S 10(26 ) OF I.T. ACT. THE GENUINENESS, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF MR. W. SUTONG IS VERIFIED AND FOUND TO BE CORRECT. THUS THE A SSESSEE 'S VERSION OF TRUTH WAS PLACED BEFORE A.O. ALSO , BUT A.O. DID NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO ABOVE FACTS. LD. CIT(A) FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT T HE A SSESSEE S HUSBAND WAS WORKING IN MEGHALAYA HOUSE AND HE USED TO COME ACROSS THE FRIEND MR. W. SUTONG IN THE MEGHALAYA HOUSE. WHEN THE A SSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND PURCHASED A HOUSE, THEY HAD DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH THE MR. W. SUTONG AND MR. W. SUTONG AGREED TO PAY THEM RS.16,18,000 / - BY CASH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT BUT LATER ON THEY REALIZED THAT THEY BEING IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE, IT IS NOT PRO PER TO GET LOAN FROM STRANGER. THERE WILL BE PROBLEMS FOR THEM AND THEY RETURNED THE MONEY IMMEDIATELY TO THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT BY RTGS. THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF REFUND OF MONEY IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, RS.15,80,000 / - WAS RETURNED BY A SSESS EE 'S HUSBAND FROM THEIR JOINT ACCOUNT TO MR. W. SUTONG. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY GAVE A RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE OF RS15.80 LAKH. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DETAILED DISCUSSIONS, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,80,000/ - AND SUSTAINED THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 38,000/ - . THEREFORE, W E DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH ITA NO. 4579/ DEL/ 2013 5 THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DISMISSING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 2 0 / 0 3 /20 1 5 . SD / - S D / - [ B.C. MEENA ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 2 0 / 3 /201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES