Income Tax Officer-I(I), Bareilly V. Smt. Abha Agarwal, Bareilly

ITA 494/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 49423714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P SRIVASTA VA
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.494/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001 - 02 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1), BAREILLY. VS. SMT. ABHA AGARWAL, R/O 65, RADHEY SHYAM ENCLAVE, BAREILLY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI Y. P. SRIVASTAVA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI YOGESH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 03/03/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 4 /04/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 25/05/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) , BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED RS.12,64.135/ - UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE I. T. ACT. 1963 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIR ED TO FURNISH THE FULL AND COMPLETE EVIDENCES OF THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN BANK BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION / DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,10,000/ - RECEIVED FROM M/S S.R. INVESTMENT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE RECEIPTS AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE THE GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THESE RECEIPTS AS INCOME OF 2 THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 A OF THE I.T.ACT. 1961. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS ACCEPTING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDING WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM NEITHER CROSS - EXAMINED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ANY OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS MAY HE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HEA RING OF APPEAL. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. REGARDING THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENU E I.E. IN RELATION TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.12,64,135/ - U/S 69A OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS DELETED BY CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED NECESSARY DETA ILS REGARDING VARIOUS DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED ON PAGE 5 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE FULL DETAILS REGARDING THESE DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS ARE AVAILABLE AND THESE DEPOSITS ARE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF KANPUR HOUSE, MATURITY PRO CEEDS OF FDR, TRANSFER FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SMT. OM WATI GUPTA (MOTHER), LOAN FROM SMT. SULAX NA RANI AGARWAL (MOTHER - IN - LAW) AND SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT NECESSARY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE ALSO PLACED I.E. PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED, CER TIFICATE FROM VIJAYA BANK 3 REGARDING FDR, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF MOTHER AND MOTHER - IN - LAW AND ALSO COPY OF ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF S. R. INVESTMENTS REGARDING SALE OF SHARES. THESE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY LEARNED D.R. AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED. 5. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING RECEIPTS FROM M/S S. R. INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THESE RECEIPTS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE GENUINE. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THESE ARE SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARE AND IN PROOF OF THAT, THE COPY OF ASSESSEES ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF S. R. INVESTMENTS, COPY OF CONTRACT NOTE ISSUED BY THEM AND COPY OF STATEMENT OF HOLDING IN DEMAT ACCOUNT WITH DEPOSITORY M/S ALANKIT ASSIGNMENTS LTD. ARE MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF CIT(A). HENCE, ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDIN GLY, THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 4 /04/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR