The Income-tax Officer, Jammu V. Smt. Gitanjali Mahajan, Jammu

ITA 460/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 46020914 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDADR
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 68; 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR [JAMMU CAMP, JAMMU] BEFORE HONBLE SHRI A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND HONBLE SHRI T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO 460(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 THE I . T .O , WARD-2(1), JAMMU. VS. SMT GITANJALI MAHAJAN , P/O M/S RAVINDER KUMAR & BROS B.C. ROAD, JAMMU PAN: ABBPM 8420 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI R.K. SHARDA(DR.) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.N. ARORA (ADV.) DATE OF HEARING: 02.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT: 04.12 .2015 ORDER THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 05.06.2015 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008- 09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO. 460(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 2 008-09 2 1. THAT WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JAMMU WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING RELIEF BY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 2. WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), JAMMU WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING RELIEF BY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69OF THE ACT AS THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IS FROM HER UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WHICH IS VERY MUCH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS TRYING TO DIVERT THE ATTENTION BY PUTTING IN UNREASONABLE EXPLANATION WHICH LACK CONVICTION. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS A PARTNER IN THE M/S RAVINDER KUMAR & BROS [RKB], JAMMU. RET URN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 142872/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.11.2008 AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY U/S 148 OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER, REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONS MADE IN THE YEAR 2009-10 ON THE SAME ISSUE. NOT SA TISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO MADE A DDITION OF RS. 17,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE JO INT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HER HUSBAND SHRI AJAY MAHAJA N. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO GRANTED ITA NO. 460(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 2 008-09 3 RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN A PPEAL AGAINST THE SAME. 3. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING RELIEF BY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IS FROM HER UND ISCLOSED SOURCES, WHICH IS VERY MUCH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS TRYING TO DIVERT THE ATTENTION BY PUTTING IN UN REASONABLE EXPLANATION WHICH LACKED CONVICTION. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE H IM. BEFORE US ALSO HE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED IT S ONUS BY PROVIDING THE IDENTITY OF THE PAYER, CREDIT WORTHIN ESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. SINCE THE PAYER HAD CO NFIRMED THAT SHE HAD MADE THE ADVANCE AND THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSE E ACCEPTED THE SAME, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 460(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 2 008-09 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PER USED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE AO W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE MONEY WAS TRANSACTED WAS A JOINT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HER HUSBAND. THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO HER PARTICULARL Y WHEN HER HUSBAND EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEPOSITS AND THE SOURCE THEREOF. IF THE AO HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE PAYING CAPACITY OF THE PAYER OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, HE COULD H AVE VERIFIED THE SAME AND MADE THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A ) IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TENABLE, WAS QUITE JU STIFIED. ALSO, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HE RSELF FOR A.Y 2009-10 WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.2014, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. ITA NO. 460(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 2 008-09 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.12.2015. SD/- SD/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (A.D.JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4.12.2015 VL/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.