Prakash G. Dudani, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4751/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7271 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGI SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: I M SA NSI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH F FF F : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND AND AND AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH SHRI KULDIP SINGH SHRI KULDIP SINGH SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 4751/DEL/2012 4751/DEL/2012 4751/DEL/2012 4751/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 2007 2007 2007 - -- - 08 0808 08 SHRI PARKASH G. DUDANI, SHRI PARKASH G. DUDANI, SHRI PARKASH G. DUDANI, SHRI PARKASH G. DUDANI, C/O M. SANSI & CO., C/O M. SANSI & CO., C/O M. SANSI & CO., C/O M. SANSI & CO., M MM M- -- -4, PALMOHA 4, PALMOHA 4, PALMOHA 4, PALMOHAN MANSION, N MANSION, N MANSION, N MANSION, 26/34, EAST PATEL NAGAR, 26/34, EAST PATEL NAGAR, 26/34, EAST PATEL NAGAR, 26/34, EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 008. 110 008. 110 008. 110 008. PAN : ADZPD4685N. PAN : ADZPD4685N. PAN : ADZPD4685N. PAN : ADZPD4685N. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -27(1), 27(1), 27(1), 27(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI I.M .SANSI, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S. NEGI, SENIOR DR. DATE OF HEARING : 04.01.2016 04.01.2016 04.01.2016 04.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.01.2016 21.01.2016 21.01.2016 21.01.2016 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP : :: :- -- - THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI DATED 25 TH JUNE, 2012. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEA L. HOWEVER, THEY ARE ALL AGAINST THE ADDITION OF `13,63,000/- S USTAINED BY LEARNED CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ITS FARM LAND/PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH THE CASH WAS RECEIVED WHICH WAS SUBSE QUENTLY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THIS EXPLANATION WA S GIVEN TO THE ITA-4751/D/2012 2 ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME AND MADE THE ADDITION OF `16,08,600/- FOR UNEXPLAINED C ASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE EXPLAINED THAT ACTUAL DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT `16,08,60 0/- BUT ONLY `13,63,600/- BECAUSE TWO ENTRIES OF CASH DEPOSITS W ERE CONSIDERED TWICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS AGAIN EXPLA INED THAT THE ACTUAL CASH DEPOSIT OF `13,63,600/- WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEE DS OF THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION ON BOTH THE GROUNDS. COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IS PLACED AT PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE REMAND REPORT ONLY PART IALLY, I.E., WITH REGARD TO DUPLICACY IN RESPECT OF TWO ENTRIES TOTAL LING TO `2,45,000/-. HE STATED THAT THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT . THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSIT IS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME IN THE REMAND REPORT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) AND STATED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALREADY C ONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT AND HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AFTER DULY CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT. THEREFORE, HIS ORDER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 7 TH MAY, 2012, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED AS UNDER:- KINDLY REFER TO YOUR LETTER NUMBER 03 DATED 12-04- 2012 ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED SUBJECT. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- ITA-4751/D/2012 3 1. REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,08,600/- IT IS T O STATE THAT THERE WAS A DUPLICACY IN ENTRIES OF RS.2,45,00 0/- (RS.1,00,000 + RS.1,45,000) WHICH WERE THE PART OF ENTRY OF RS.13,63,600/- REFLECTED IN THE AIR INFORMATION. HENCE THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED. REGARDING, THE ENTRY O F RS.16,63,600/- THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE OUT OF SAL E OF LAND WHICH IS ACCEPTABLE ON MERITS. 2. IF THE ABOVE ADDITIONS ARE DELETED, THEN THE CAP ITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE ARISEN DURING THE F.Y. 2006 -07 MAY BE CONSIDERED WHILE ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSE SSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT( A) IS REQUESTED TO PASS THE ORDER ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 6. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS A DUPLICACY IN THE ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO `2,45,000/- (`1,00,000 + `1,45,000). THIS PART OF THE REMAND R EPORT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A). SO FAR AS THE DEPOSIT OF ` 13,63,600/- IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED REGARDIN G THE ENTRY OF RS.16,63,600/- (CORRECT FIGURE RS.13,63,600/-) THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE OUT OF SALE OF LAND WHICH IS ACCEPTABLE ON MER ITS. THUS, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS STATED THAT THE C ASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE OUT OF SALE OF LAND WHICH IS ACCEPTABLE ON MER ITS, IN OUR OPINION, LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF `13,63,600/- CONSIDERING THE SAME TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF `13,63 ,600/-. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.01.2016 . SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH (KULDIP SINGH (KULDIP SINGH (KULDIP SINGH ) )) ) ( (( ( G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL ) )) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. ITA-4751/D/2012 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI PARKASH G. DUDANI, SHRI PARKASH G. DUDANI, SHRI PARKASH G. DUDANI, SHRI PARKASH G. DUDANI, C/O M. SANSI & CO., M C/O M. SANSI & CO., M C/O M. SANSI & CO., M C/O M. SANSI & CO., M- -- -4, PALMOHAN 4, PALMOHAN 4, PALMOHAN 4, PALMOHAN MANSION, MANSION, MANSION, MANSION, 26/34, EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI 26/34, EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI 26/34, EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI 26/34, EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110 008. 110 008. 110 008. 110 008. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -27(1), NEW DELHI. 27(1), NEW DELHI. 27(1), NEW DELHI. 27(1), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR