M/s. Kamla Kansal, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4602/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6870 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BA RANWAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-460 2/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2007-08) KAMLA KANSAL, ED-79C, PITAMPURA, DELHI-110088. PAN-AAAPK6400A (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-27(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SAMEER KAPOOR, CA RESPONDENT BY MS. ANIMA BAR A NWAL, SR.DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2014 OF CIT(A)-V, NEW DELHI PERTA INING TO 2007-08 ASSESSMENT YEAR. VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.AR SUBMI TTED THAT HE WOULD CONFINE HIMSELF ONLY TO GROUND NOS. 2 AND 4 AS GROUND NOS. 1 AND 3 ARE NOT BEING PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NOS. 2 AND 4 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 2. WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A DDITION OF RS.2,11,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH REALIZED FROM PETTY DEBTORS. 4. WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ADDI TION OF RS.2,81,083/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROCEEDS FROM CASH BUSINESS. 3. ADDRESSING THE FACTS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS.80,922/- AND THE SAID RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SC RUTINY UNDER CASS. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM SALE AND PURC HASE OF GARMENTS AND CLOTH WHICH IS DATE OF HEARING 0 3 .08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 7 . 1 0.2016 I.T.A .NO.-4602/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 4 CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST 2- 3 YEARS PRIOR TO THE PRESENT YEAR THE RECORD WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OLDER DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,10,970/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE THE NAMES AND ADDR ESS OF 20 PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ABOVE RECOVERY WAS CLAIMED. ON A TEST CHECK BASIS, HE ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133 (6) TO 6 PERSONS THEREFROM. REPLIES WERE RECEIVED FR OM SUNITA AGARWAL AND ALKA AGGARWAL SUBSEQUENTLY THEIR ITRS AND AFFIDAVITS WERE ALSO FI LED IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE NOTICES SENT TO THE OTHERS LADIES NAMELY RADHA, MAN ISHA, SHAKUNTALA AND BIMLA, IT WAS SUBMITTED CAME BACK UNSERVED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THE SE WERE DOMESTIC CONSUMERS LIVING IN VILLAGES THUS FOR WHATEVER REASON NOTICE WAS NOT SE RVED UPON THEM CANNOT BE A GROUND TO ADD THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THESE WERE 4 PEOPLE OUT OF THE 6 PICKED UP BY THE AO. TWO HAD REPLIED. THE FACT TH AT THERE WAS NOMINAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF SUNITA AND ALKA AGGARWAL BY ITSELF DOES NO T DETRACT FROM THE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE OUTSTANDING. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TH AT THE REMAINING 4 PERSONS WERE ADMITTEDLY LIVING VILLAGES HAVING INCOME WHICH MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO NECESSITATE A RETURN HAVING BEEN FILED BUT THE FACT REMAINS THA T SOME HAVE FILED CONFIRMATION IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6). IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT HOW CAN THE ENTIRE AMOUNT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IF IT ALL ADDITION CAN BE MADE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO THREE PERSON WHO HAVE NOT RESPONDED NAMELY RADHA, MANISHA AND SHAKUNTALA. 4. THE LD. SR.DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT T HE ENTIRE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS BOGUS AS SHE HAS BEEN COMING OUT WITH DIFFERENT EXP LANATIONS AT DIFFERENT TIMES. HOWEVER, THE LD.SR.DR WAS UNABLE TO DEFEND HOW IN THE CASE WHERE THERE ARE 20 DEBTORS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CARES TO ISSUE NOTICE ONLY TO 6 P ARTIES THEN IN FACTS WHERE 2 HAVE AFFIRMED I.T.A .NO.-4602/DEL/2014 PAGE 3 OF 4 HOW THE ENTIRE CASE CAN BE SAID TO BE BOGUS. CONSID ERING THE OVERALL FACTUAL MATRIX, THE LD. AR AGREED THAT PART ADDITION MAY BE SUSTAINED AND F INALLY AGREED THAT ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 25% MAY BE SUSTAINED AND 75% MAY BE DELETED. TH E SAID PRAYER WAS NOT OPPOSED BY THE LD.SR.DR WHO CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AGREED THAT GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PARTLY A LLOWED. 4.1. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RES TRICT THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,11,000/- TO THE EXTENT OF 25% ONLY. GROUND NO.2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4.2. ADDRESSING THE ADDITION MADE WHICH IS CHALLENG ED BY GROUND NO. 4, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SAME AS CASH DEPOSIT AS REPRESENTING THE CASH AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS OF HOME SA LES ON CREDIT WHICH HAD BEEN MADE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 07. HEREIN ALSO THE ASSE SSEE WAS HELD TO HAVE NOT FILED SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DISCARDED ON A PARTIAL TEST CHECK BASIS TH E ISSUE MAY BE CLOSED BY WAY OF IDENTICAL ESTIMATE BY RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 25% AND GRANT RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF 75%. THE LD.SR.DR CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTUAL MATRIX DID NOT OPPOSE THE PRAYER. ACCORDINGLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND THE FACTS PARTIAL RELIEF IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITION IS DIRECTE D TO BE RESTRICTED 25% FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. THE ABOVE CONCLUSION AND ESTIMATES ARE B ASED ON PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THEY SHALL NOT BE PR ECEDENT FOR THE ASSESSEE IN ANY FUTURE OR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. I.T.A .NO.-4602/DEL/2014 PAGE 4 OF 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH OCTOBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI