Smt. Shaila Agarwal, Kanpur V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (C.C-VI), Kanpur

ITA 525/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100368 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADEEP KAPOOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.525/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 SMT. SHAILA AGARWAL 7/130, SWAROOP NAGAR KANPUR V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE VI KANPUR TAN/PAN:AANPA8364Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. PRADEEP KAPOOR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 12 08 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 09 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,11,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,61,200/- WAS FOUND FROM HER POSSESSION, OUT OF WHICH RS.3 LAKHS WAS SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH FOUND AND IN RESPONSE THERETO, IT WAS STATED THAT OUT OF RS.3,61,200/-, RS.2 LAKHS BELONGS TO HER MOTHER-IN-LAW, SMT. LALMANI AGARWAL; RS.1,26,727/- BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND RS.34,473/- WAS STRIDHAN OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A :- 2 -: CREDIT OF RS.50,000/- OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS AND MADE ADDITION OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,11,200/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH HIM. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US AND REITERATED HER CONTENTIONS WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CREDIT OF THE CASH BELONGING TO HER MOTHER-IN-LAW AND ALSO OF HER STRIDHAN. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT CERTAIN AMOUNT WAS ACCUMULATED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME ON ACCOUNT OF HER PERSONAL SAVINGS, THEREFORE, SOME CREDIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ESTIMATING THE UNEXPLAINED CASH IN HER HANDS. 5. THE LD. D.R. HAS SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. HAVING CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT CASH OF RS.3,61,200/- WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, OUT OF WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A CREDIT OF RS.50,000/-. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IN THE SOCIETY EACH AND EVERY LADY KEEPS CERTAIN AMOUNT OUT OF HER SAVINGS AND REASONABLE CREDIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN WHILE ESTIMATING THE UNEXPLAINED CASH. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HER MOTHER-IN-LAW WAS RESIDING WITH HER WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, CERTAIN CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE WITH HER MOTHER-IN-LAW ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE AT RS.3,61,200/-, A REASONABLE CREDIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN CREDIT OF RS.50,000/- WHICH, ACCORDING TO US, IS AT LOWER SIDE. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT CREDIT OF ATLEAST RS.1.50 LAKHS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE :- 3 -: AS PERSONAL SAVINGS AND SAVINGS OF MOTHER-IN-LAW AND REST OF THE AMOUNT MAY BE ADDED. WE, THEREFORE, RESTRICT THE ADDITION FROM RS.3,11,200/- TO RS.2,11,200/-. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2015 JJ:1409 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR