Parmeet Singh Sood, Gurgaon V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4832/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 483220114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.4832 /DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 PARMEET SINGH SOOD, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), A-48/39A, DLF, PHASE I, NEW DELHI GURGAON-122022 GIR / PAN: AATPS8079A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH KUMAR KHIWANI, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA, SR. DR ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 11.06.2012. THE ONLY GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSEE IS HIS GRIEVANCE WITH THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD UPHEL D THE ADDITION OF RS.76,500/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1 LAC MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A DIRECTOR IN THE COMPANY M/S. CLIMEX OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. AND HAS EARN ED SALARY INCOME FROM THE COMPANY. AS PER RECORDS AVAILABLE, THE ASSESSE E FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.3,68 ,390/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF ITA NO.4832/DEL/2012 2 RS.1 LAC IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 10.04.2007, THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE FI LED COPY OF CASH ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2007 TO 31.03.2008 WHEREI N HE TOOK AN OPENING BALANCE OF RS.76,500/- AND WITH THE WITHDRAWAL OF R S.40,000/- ON 06.04.2007 AND 09.04.2007 OF RS.20,000/- EACH THE ASSESSEE EXP LAINED THE DEPOSIT OF RS.1 LAC ON 10.04.2007. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AS HE OBSERVED THAT NO EVIDENC E OF OPENING BALANCE WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITI ON OF RS.1 LAC. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.76,500/- ONLY ON THE BASIS OF UNEXPLAINED OPENIN G BALANCE OF CASH. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS EARNING SALARY INCOME, THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT EXPECTED TO MA INTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, H E PREPARED CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND TOOK RS.76,500/- AS OPENING BALANCE W HICH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AFTER FILING THE ABOVE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FURTHER QUESTI ONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE OPENING BALANCE BUT THE ADDIT ION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.1 LAC. DISBELIEVING THE OPE NING BALANCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT SOME CASH IS ALWAYS EXPECTED TO BE I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT EVERY POINT OF TIME AND IT WAS NOT FAIR ON THE PART OF AUTHORITIES BELOW TO DISBELIEVE THE ENTIRE OPENING CASH IN HAND SPECIFICALLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE PARENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO ASSESSEES AND WERE FILING THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS. ITA NO.4832/DEL/2012 3 4. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED COPY OF CASH ACCOUNT FO R THE PERIOD 01.04.2007 TO 31.03.2008. IN THE CASH BOOK THE ASS ESSEE SHOWN OPENING BALANCE OF RS.76,500/- AND CASH DEPOSIT ON 10.04.2007, NARRATION OF THIS DEPOSIT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE FR OM WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING THIS DEPOSIT. THE OPENING BA LANCE IS ALSO UNVERIFIABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE . 6. FROM THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT QUESTIONED REGARDING DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO OPENING BALANCE AND SIMPLY BY DISBELIEVING THE EXIS TENCE OF OPENING BALANCE HE MADE THE ADDITION. EVEN WITHDRAWAL OF RS.20,000/- EACH ON 06.04.2007 AND 09.04.2007, WAS NOT CONSIDERED. LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION TO RS.76,500/- BEING UNEXPLAINED OPENING BALANCE IGNORING THE FACT THAT BEFORE DEPOSITING RS.1 LAC, THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN RS.20,000/- EACH ON 06.04.2007 AND ON 09.04.2007. THEREFORE, RS.40,000/- OUT OF RS.1 LAC IS TOTALLY EXPLAINED. FURTHER THE D ENIAL OF OPENING BALANCE IN ITS ENTIRETY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIVING WITH HIS PARENTS WHO HAD THEIR SEPARATE INCOME AS SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A), AS CONTAINED IN PER PAPER BOOK P AGE 16. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 .20 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF NON WITHDRAWAL OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES IN SPITE OF T HE FACT THAT HE HAD SUBMITTED THAT HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE MET BY HIS P ARENTS. THEREFORE, ITA NO.4832/DEL/2012 4 CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS IN VIEW, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EXISTENCE OF OPENING BALANCE OF CASH AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FAMILY SIMPLY CANNOT BE DENIED SPECIFICALLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE F ACT THAT THREE PERSONS ARE EARNING MEMBERS. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH AUG., 2014. SD./- SD./- ( I. C. SUDHIR ) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 08 TH AUG., 2014 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING DATE OF DICTATION DATE OF TYPING DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.