Sultan Singh, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 37(1), New Delhi

ITA 4630/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4078 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIV MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJ KARAN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4630/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Sultan Singh, H.No.248, Vill. & PO- Ranikhera, New Delhi-110081. PAN-BXKPS6331Q vs ITO, Ward-37(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Raj Karan, CA Respondent by Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 02.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 22.04.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi dated 19.03.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Ld. CIT (Appeal -13) has erred in law as well as facts of the case by dismissing the appeal. 2. That Ld. CIT (Appeal-13) has erred in law by not accepting land compensation of Rs. 17,71,486/- received by the assessee on 22/02/2006. Whereas copy of a/c payee cheque of Rs. 17,71,486/- in the name of assessee mentioning account number & name of the bank branch was submitted in the time of hearing. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal-13) has erred in law by not accepting the source of cash deposits of Rs. 18,60,000/- whereas the detail of cash deposits and its source were submitted at the time of hearing with CIT(Appeal-13) ITA No.4630/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Page | 2 4. That the assessee reserve the right to add, amend or delete any grounds of the appeal at the timing of the hearing.” FACTS OF THE CASE 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, information was received regarding deposit of cash amounting to Rs.18,60,000/- in the saving bank account of the assessee during the Financial year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11. The case was re-opened for assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). However, in response to the notice issued, no one attended the proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) made addition of Rs.18,60,000/-. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal. 4. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the AO. He further submitted that the evidences submitted by the assessee were not considered. Further, the assessee also stated that the amount as deposited was out of cash withdrawn by the assessee. The assessee has given details of cash deposited and also has filed bank statement to buttress the contention that the deposits were out of cash withdrawals. 6. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. ITA No.4630/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Page | 3 7. I have heard Ld. Authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only effective ground is against sustaining the addition of Rs.18,60,000/-. The case of the assessee is that the amount was withdrawn from the bank account and deposited subsequently. It was also stated that the income was from the retiral dues and the land compensation received by the assessee. I find that the assessee has furnished sufficient evidence regarding source of deposits. However, these evidences were not considered by the authorities below. I therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the AO to make assessment afresh after verifying the veracity of the evidences filed by the assessee in the form of bank statement etc. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22 nd April, 2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI