A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior V. Sh. Rajeev Gupta, Morena

ITA 522/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 52220314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 522/AGRA/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, VS. SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, GWALIOR. SARAFA BAZAR, MORENA. (PAN: AGPPG 3414 K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SHARMA, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 16.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 20.12.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 28.08.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-10, CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.32,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES U/S. 46A OF THE IT RULES. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS INDIVIDUAL AND THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.32,75,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOUR CES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT AS PER AIR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE INCOME-TAX D EPARTMENT, IT WAS FOUND THAT ITA NO. 522/AGRA/2012 2 THE ASSESSEE OWNED SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 09920150 073 IN ICICI BANK MORENA BRANCH, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.32,7 5,200/- BY WAY OF CASH. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF S ALE PROCEEDS OF PLOTS SOLD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR BY MR. TRILOKI NATH GUPTA S/O PY ARE LAL GUPTA. THE PERUSAL OF SALE DEED SHOWS THAT MR. TRILOKI NATH GUPTA CLAIMED THAT HE WAS SOLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SOLD. PROPERTY WAS SOLD IN INDIVIDUAL CAPA CITY AND NOT IN HUF CAPACITY. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY EVIDENCE OF HUF ORG ANIZATION. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE CASH DEPOSIT ED ON VARIOUS DATES WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDITION OF THE SAME WAS MADE. T HE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT HE WAS MEMBER AND COPARCENER OF HUF, TRILOKI NATH GUPTA & SONS, PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S. M/S. GIRWAR LAL PYARE LAL OF MORENA. THE ASSES SEES FATHER IS TRILOKI NATH GUPTA, WHO IS KARTA OF THE HUF. HUF ON THE DEATH OF ITS KARTA LATE SHRI PYARE LAL CAME TO BE KNOWN AS M/S. TRILOKI NATH GUPTA & SONS AND AFTER PYARE LAL, SHRI TRILOK NATH GUPTA BECAME KARTA AND HE HAD THE FAMIL Y AND WAS ASSESSED TO TAX. COPIES OF VARIOUS ORDERS OF HUF WERE PRODUCED ON RE CORD. THE HUF POSSESSED NUMBER OF PROPERTIES, WHICH WERE IN POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION OF OLD TENANTS AND WERE PAYING THE NOMINAL RENT, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AT PAGE 3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT LATER ON TENANTS OF HUF BECAME HOSTILE AND DID NOT PAY ANY RENT OR ALLOWED OTHER UNAUTHORIZED PERS ON TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY ILLEGALLY, WHO HAD NOT PAID ANY RENT. CONSIDERING T HE ABOVE DIFFICULTIES, THE HUF OF ITA NO. 522/AGRA/2012 3 TRILOKI NATH GUPTA DISPOSED OF THE PROPERTY IN PART S FOR RS.76,71,000/-. COPIES OF THE SALE DEEDS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. THE DE TAILS OF THE SAME IS ALSO NOTED AT PAGE 4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISE OUT OF SALE OF JEEN PROPERTY OF HUF WHO HAVE FILED RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ALSO. SINCE SRI TRILOKI NATH GUPTA WAS AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS AND WAS SUFFERING FROM HEART DISEASE AND HIS SONS RAJEEV GU PTA I.E., THE ASSESSEE AND SANJEEV GUPTA WERE NOT HAVING CORDIAL RELATIONS AND DUE TO SERIOUS FAMILY DISPUTES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE BROTHERS, THE PROPERTIE S WERE SOLD AND THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THE SONS EQUALLY. THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THOSE AMOUNTS, DEPOSITED RS.32,75,200/- IN HIS BANK ACCOU NT ON DIFFERENT DATES. ALL THE INCOME-TAX RECORDS OF HUF AND SALE DEEDS WERE FURNI SHED IN RESPECT OF ABOVE CONTENTIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) ON VERIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE PROPERTIES HELD BY HUF, OF WHICH THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS KARTA AND EVEN DEMAND NO TICES WERE ISSUED IN THE CASE OF HUF. THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT WAS EXPLAINED THROUGH SALE DEEDS OF HUF PROPERTIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 3. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED SUFF ICIENT EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO PROVE THAT HUF IN Q UESTION, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS A SHARE AND MEMBER OF HUF, HELD PROPERTIES, WHI CH WERE SOLD BY KARTA OF ITA NO. 522/AGRA/2012 4 HUF. THE INCOME-TAX RECORDS OF HUF AND COPIES OF SA LE DEEDS WERE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF MAKING VARIOUS DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. NO ADVERSE MATERIAL IS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). NOTHING IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AS TO WHICH FRESH/ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS PR ODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. ADMITTEDLY, THE SALE DEEDS W ERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, WHICH WERE ALSO PART OF AIR INFORMATION. OTHERS WER E INCOME-TAX RECORDS OF HUF. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RU LE 46A IN THE MATER. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE SAME IS ACCOR DINGLY DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY