Smt. Amarjit Kaur, Bathinda V. The Income tax Officer, Bathinda

ITA 539/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68196 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: BEXPK9010E SMT. AMARJIT KAUR, 164-C, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HOUSEFED COLONY, OPP. MILK WARD 1(2), BATHINDA PLANT, BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR DATE OF HEARING: 30.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.09.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.05.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BA THINDA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) BY THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BATHINDA IN A PPEAL NO. 239-IT/CIT(A)/BTI/09-10 DATED 22.05.2013 IS CONTRAR Y TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. II. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED IN 2 I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 AS VALID. III. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- MADE BY TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY TREATING THE SAME AS EXPLAINED . IV. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER AN Y GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL, CHANDIGARH. 2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS BY COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.2009. 3) AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.20 09, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.05.2013, PARTLY ALLOWE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORD ER DATED 22.05.2013, ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL ON 16 .08.2013. 4) NOTICE OF HEARING BY RPAD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE FOR 20.09.2013 AND ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THE C ASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 30.09.2013 AS LAST OPPORTUNITY. 3 I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 5) AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR HER AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE CASE IN SP ITE OF THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL NOTED THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING A ND ENDORSED THE SAME IN THE FILE, AND THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION DATED 2 3.09.2013 SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED ON 27.09.2013, AND WAS COM MUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. 6) KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PRESENT CASE AND THE MATTER BEING A SMALL ADDITION, I PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE EX-PARTE AFTER HEARING LEARNED DR. 7) THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE HAS E LABORATELY BEEN MENTIONED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT PAGES 2 AND 3 OF HIS ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE SAME AR E REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEES MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME DURING TH E YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, FAMILY PENSION BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE APPELLANT NEVER EN JOYED INCOME EXCEEDING THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT AND AS SUCH NO RETURN WAS EVER FILED BY HER. THAT THE APPELLANT BEING AN OLD AND W IDOW LADY WAS NOT BEING LOOKED AFTER BY HER CHILDREN AND FOR THAT SHE WAS LIVING WITH HER MARRIED DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW SH. I.S. BUTTER. ON THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT, THE LEARNED A.O. INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 147 AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148. THE APPELLANT FILED HER RETURN ON 15.12.2008 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 41000/- BESI DES AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 1,30,400/-. THAT THE SON-IN-LAW OF TH E APPELLANT SH. I.S. BUTTER HAS MAINTAINED, INTER ALIA, SAVING BANK ACCO UNT WITH SBOP IN HIS OWN NAME WHEREIN DEPOSITS WERE BEING MADE OUT O F THE INCOME/FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT, HER DAUG HTER SMT. 4 I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SUMANDEEP KAUR AND HER SON-IN-LAW I.S. BUTTER AND T HE WITHDRAWALS THEREFROM WERE BEING MADE AT THE TIME OF NEED BY TH E APPELLANT AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF SH. I.S. BUTTER. IN ORDER TO KEEP THE RECORDS AND TO HAVE ABREAST OF ALL THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTION, T HE SAID SH. I.S. BUTTER WAS MAINTAINING MEMORANDUM OF ACCOUNT BOOKS REGULAR LY. AS PER THE SAID BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, CASH IN HAND AS ON 01.04.20 05 STOOD AT RS. 5,32,301/-. THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED B EFORE THE LEARNED A.O. FOR EXAMINATION AND HIS VERIFICATION. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED A.O. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 OBSERVED IN THE ORDER THAT FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE REG ARDING AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND, ON THE SAID DATE, WAS BEING TAKEN AT RS. 3,00,000/- WITHOUT ANY REASON, MATERIAL ON RECORDS AND ON ESTI MATE BASIS. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR AS WELL AS DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND WITHDRAWALS/INVEST MENTS/EXPENSES THE LEARNED A.O. HELD THAT INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,55,250/- REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE AN ADDIT ION OF RS. 2,55,250/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ARBITRA RILY AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. THAT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE EXPENSES, CASH IN HAND AT THE CLOSE OF YEAR WAS REDUCED TO A NEGATIVE FIGURE AND CONSEQUENTLY FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE OPENING BALANCE OF CASH IN HAND WAS TAKEN AT NIL. A S A RESULT DEPOSIT OF RS. 2,50,000/- ON 01.05.2006 IN THE BANK WAS HELD AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. SINCE THERE WAS NO BASE OR MATERIAL FOR ADOPTING THE FIGURE OF RS. 3,00,000/- AS CASH I N HAND AS ON 01.04.2005, AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- WAS NOT C ALLED FOR AND IT IS ARBITRARY IN NATURE AND NEEDS BE KNOCKED DOWN. AGAIN, AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,03,132/- WAS MADE O N ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION D ETERMINED BY THE V.O. AND THE ONE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNE D A.O. MADE THIS ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ALL THE BUILDING MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS ALSO SUPERVISED BY HER. FOR IT, REBATE RANGING BETWEEN 1 0% AND 15% HAS INVARIABLY BEEN ALLOWED BY THE V.O. AS WELL AS BY T HE AOS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. FURTHER THE OBJECT IONS RAISED IN THIS REGARD WERE NOT REFUTED WITH ANY PLAUSIBLE REASONIN G BY THE LEARNED A.O. 5 I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 BOTH THESE ADDITIONS OF RS. 2,50,000/- AND RS. 1, 03,132/- WERE APPARENTLY BASED ON SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPI CION, WHICH NEEDS BE DELETED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE EXPLAIN ED ABOVE. 8) SH. AMRIK CHAND, LEARNED DR, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT AND FILED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 3 0.09.2013 AND STATED THAT THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED AND THE ISSUE IN DI SPUTE MAY BE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WRITTEN S UBMISSION DATED 30.09.2013 FILED BY LEARNED DR IS REPRODUCED AS UND ER: BEFORE THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. BENCH. AMRITSAR DATE OF HEARING 30/09/13 APPEAL NO. I.T.A. 539(ASR)/2013 SMT. AMARJIT KAUR, BHATHINDA ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REGARDING PROCEEDING U/S 147/148 1. GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 ARE NOT VALID, IS TOTALLY INCORRECT. THE A. O. VALIDLY INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 BY APPLYING HIS MIND. BEFORE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS HE CARRIED OUT PRELIMINARY ENQUIRIES IN ASMUCH AS HE ALSO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28.02.200 8. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147, AS AMEN DED W.E.F. 01/04/1989 ARE CONTEXTUALLY DIFFERENT AND CUMULATIVE CONDITION S SPELT OUT UNDER SECTION 147(A) AND 147(B) PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT AR E NOT PRESENT IN THE AMENDED PROVISIONS. THE ONLY CONDITION FOR ACTION I S THAT THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SUCH BELIEF CAN BE REACHED IN ANY MANNER AND IS NOT QUAL IFIED BY A PRE- 6 I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 CONDITION OF FAITH AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACT BY AN ASSESSEE AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE PRE-AMENDED ACTION U/S 147(A). I) IN THE CASES OF M/S BAWA ABHAL SINGH VS. DY. C IT(2001) 117 TAXMAN 12(DELHI) AND M/S RAKESH AGGARWAL VS. ASSTT. CIT (1996) 87 TAXMAN 306(DELHI), HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD TH AT POWER TO RE- OPEN THE ASSESSMENT IS MUCH WIDER UNDER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS AND CAN BE EXERCISED EVEN AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLO SED FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS II) IN THE CASE OF M/S RAKESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKE RS VS. CIT, 291 ITR 500 (SC), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD TH AT RE- ASSESSMENT-VALIDITY-ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1) - U/S 147, AS SUBSTITUTED W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 1989, IF THE A.O., FOR WHATEVER REASON, HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSES SMENT, IT CONFERS JURISDICTION TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT WHERE THE CA SE IS NOT COVERED BY PROVISO TO SECTION 147- FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS U/S 1 43(3) WILL NOT RENDER THE A.O. POWERLESS TO INITIATE THE REASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS EVEN WHEN INTIMATION U/S 143(1) HAD BEEN ISSUED- INTIMATION U /S 143(1)(A) CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND THERE B EING NO ASSESSMENT U/S 143(1)(A), THE QUESTION OF CHANGE OF OPINION DO ES NOT ARISE. III) IN THE CASE OF M/S KALYANJI MAVJI & CO. VS. C IT(SC) 102 ITR 287, IT IS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT THE EXPRESSION HAS REASON TO BELIEVE IS WIDER THAN IS SATISFIED REA SONS MUST HAVE A LIVE LINK WITH THE FORMATION OF BELIEF. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND VARIO US DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT, CITED ABOVE, THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT T HE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ACCOUNT MAY BE REJEC TED. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- 7 I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E APPELLANT PRODUCED MEMORANDUM OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT I.E. CASH B OOK. THE OPENING CASH IN HAND IN THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN TAK EN AT RS. 5,32,301/- ON 1/04/2005. BUT THE A.O. HAS TAKEN THE CASH IN HA ND AT RS. 3,00,000/- ON 01/04/2005 BECAUSE IN THE CASH IN HAND SALARY IN COME OF SUMANDEEP KAUR (DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE) HAD BEEN ADDED BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED FOR ANY SALARY INCOME IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUMANDEEP KAUR (DISCUSSED IN PARA-6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) AS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. THUS, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF THIS AMOUNT ON 01/05/2006 IN THE SAVING FUND ACCOUNT OF SH. INDERJIT SINGH (SON- IN-LAW) REMAINED UNEXPLAINED BECAUSE THE A.O. HAS TAKEN THE CASH IN HAND AS ON 01/04/2005 AT RS. 3 LACS. THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO REBUT THE FINDING OF THE A.O. THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THE SALARY INCOME O F SMT. SUMANDEEP KAUR WHICH HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE FUND FLOW STATE MENT. I) IN THE CASES OF M/S ROSHAN DI HATI VS. CIT(SC) 107 ITR 938 AND M/S KALE KHAN MOHAMMAND HANIF VS. CIT(SC) 50 IT R 1, IT IS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF A SUM OF MONEY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY AN ASSE SSEE IS ON HIM. WHEN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF A RECEIPT, WHETHER IT BE OF MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY, CANNOT BE SATISFACTORY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO HOLD THAT IS THE INCOME OF A SSESSEE AND NO FURTHER BURDEN LIES ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME IS FROM ANY PARTICULAR SOURCE. 7. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS MENTIONED IN PARA-5 AND 6 AND OBSERVATIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA) THE A .O. IS IN RIGHT APPRECIATION IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RE GARDING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/-. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYE D THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE REJECTED ON THIS ACCOUNT. YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/./- (AMRIK CHAND) 8 I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DCIT(DR), I.T.A.T., ASR 9) I HAVE HEARD LEARNED DR ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E AS WELL AS HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONG WITH THE CITATIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED DR IN HIS W RITTEN SUBMISSION AND BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR ORDERS. 10) AS REGARDS TO THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VALIDLY INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AFTER CARR YING OUT THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES AND RECORDING VARIOUS STATEME NTS. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AMENDED W.E.F. 01.04.1989, THE ONLY CONDITION FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REASONS TO BELIEF THAT THE INCOME HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT. ISSUE REGARDING THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAS EL ABORATELY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND DECIDE D IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF M/S RAKESH JHAVERI STOCK BRO KERS VS. CIT, 291 ITR 500 (SC), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HEL D AS UNDER: RE-ASSESSMENT-VALIDITY-ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 1 43(1)- U/S 147, AS SUBSTITUTED W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 1989, IF THE A.O., FOR WHATEVER REASON, HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED A SSESSMENT, IT CONFERS JURISDICTION TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT WHER E THE CASE IS NOT COVERED BY PROVISO TO SECTION 147- FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS U/S 143(3) WILL 9 I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 NOT RENDER THE A.O. POWERLESS TO INITIATE THE REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN WHEN INTIMATION U/S 143(1) HAD BEEN ISSUED- IN TIMATION U/S 143(1)(A) CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE AN ORDER OF ASSES SMENT AND THERE BEING NO ASSESSMENT U/S 143(1)(A), THE QUESTION OF CHANGE OF OPINION DOES NOT ARISE. 11) IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND VARIOUS DECISIO NS CITED BY LEARNED DR AS WELL AS THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLANT A UTHORITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT TH E LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ACTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKEN UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, I DISMISS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2 BY UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON LEGAL GROUND. 12) AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAIN ED AND UPHELD BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER GOING THRO UGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY LEARNED DR ALONG WITH THE RELEV ANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH ME AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASE IN HAND IS DIFFER ENT FROM THE CASE WHICH COMES FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH IN A ROUTINE MAN NER. AS PER RECORD, THE ASSESSEES MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, FAMILY PENSION AND AGRICULTURAL. THE 10 I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ASSESSEE IS AN OLD AND WIDOW LADY, WHO IS BEING LOO KED AFTER BY HER MARRIED DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW FOR MORE THAN 10 YE ARS BECAUSE HER ONE SON IS LIVING IN USA FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS AND TH E OTHER CHILDREN WERE MARRIED MORE THAN 10 YEARS BACK AND THEY ARE NOT LO OKING AFTER HER IN THESE OLD DAYS. AFTER DEATH OF HER HUSBAND IN SEPTE MBER, 1984, SHE HAS BEEN GETTING FAMILY PENSION, WHICH IS BEING CREDITE D TO HER S.B. ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND SHE WITHDR AWS THE SAME IMMEDIATELY FOR HER PERSONAL EXPENSES. SHE IS HAVIN G ABOUT 6 ACRES AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN ON LEASE AND THE INCOME FROM THIS RANGES BETWEEN RS. 1,10,000/- TO RS. 1,30,000/- PER ANNUM. SHE DID NOT DEPOSIT THE CASH REGULARLY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BECA USE SHE WAS SCARED THAT HER ANOTHER MARRIED SON WHO IS LIVING SEPARATE LY AND NOT LOOKING AFTER HER IN THESE OLD DAYS, COULD DEMAND MONEY FRO M HER. ON THE OTHER HAND, HER YOUNGER SON ALWAYS DEMANDS MONEY FROM HER AND KEEPS AN EAGLE EYE ON HER BANK BALANCE, THUS, IN ORDER TO ES CAPE FROM UNPLEASANT SITUATIONS, SHE NORMALLY KEEPS HER INCOME AT HOME A ND A PART OF IT, ON CERTAIN OCCASIONS, IS KEPT UNDER THE CUSTODY OF HER SON-IN-LAW SH. INDERJIT SINGH BUTTER WITH WHOM SHE IS LIVING FOR THE LAST M ANY YEARS. IN THESE 11 I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SITUATIONS, THE ASSESSEE KEPT THE MONEY WITH HER AN D DID NOT DEPOSIT REGULARLY IN THE BANKS. 13) THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEES CASE THAT UNDER WHA T CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE HAD KEPT THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE AS CASH-IN- HAND AND LATER ON GIVEN THE AMOUNT TO HER SON-IN-LAW, NAMED, INDERJIT SINGH BUTTER TO DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. SH. INTERJIT SINGH BUT TER HAS ALSO FILED HIS AFFIDAVIT CORROBORATING THE VERSION OF ASSESSEE, WH ICH HAS NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 14) KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY MADE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE AND THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO WRONGLY UPHELD THE SAME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND SITUATION PREVAILING IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, I C ANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.05.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BA THINDA, WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE AD DITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- MADE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLO SED SOURCES. 15) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S PARTLY ALLOWED. 12 I.T.A. NO. 539(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 SD/./- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SMT. AMARJIT KAUR, 164-C, HOUSEFED CO LONY, OPP. MILK PLANT, BATHINDA 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BATHINDA 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.