Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
5420914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
7 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
27-09-2012
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
15-05-2017
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
07-02-2012
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.54(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAN :AAVPC3879J SH. JAGJIT SINGH CHAHAL, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. WAD 4(2), AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. ASHWANI KALIA, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH.R.L.CHHANALIA, DR DATE OF HEARING:26/09/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:27/09/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 02.01.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.43,01,000/- MADE BY T HE AO BEING THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS APPELLANTS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ITA NO.54(ASR)/2012 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR, WHILE CON FIRMING THE ABOVE ADDITIONS HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN HIS HANDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAID DEPOSIT IN BANK WERE MADE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR, HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE TELESCOPIC EFFECT TO THE WITHDRAWALS M ADE FROM THE BANKS FOR THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK. 4. THAT THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH ON DIFFERENT DATES AMOU NTING TO RS.14,01,000/- AND RS.29,00,000/- IN ALL, IN BANK ACCOUNTS IN IDB I BANK LTD AND KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. AND ONE ANOTHER BANK. THE ASSESS EE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.7 LACS AND OTHER INCOME AT RS.2,67,300/-. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY, RENT FROM PROP ERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CASH FLOW ST ATEMENT EXPLAINING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE AN ADDITI ON OF RS.43,01,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATION AGAIN BUT THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. ITA NO.54(ASR)/2012 3 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. ASHWANI KA LIA, CA, ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED TO TAX FOR THE LAST 15 YEA RS. COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF FILING OF RETURNS OF INCOME F ROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ARE PLACED O N RECORD FOR OUR PERUSAL. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WAS PUT TO SCRUTINY BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 06.11.2008 PLACED ON RECORD IN PB 35-36. THE DEPARTMENT HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED THE DECLARED IN COME BY THE ASSESSEE FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES I.E. SALARY, RENT AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY DISP UTE THROUGHOUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FILING THE RETURNS OF INCOME WITH THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS AS REGARDS THE SALARY INCOME, RENTAL INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES & AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AS REGARDS THE CASH WITHDRAWN AND DEPOSITED , THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOS ITS IN THE BANKS WHICH ARE ONLY OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM BANKS OUT OF DECLARED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION THAT THE CAS H HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FOR BUYING PROPERTY WHICH ULTIMATELY COULD NOT MATERIA LISE AND THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AS AND WHEN NEEDED OUT OF CAS H IN HAND. THERE IS ITA NO.54(ASR)/2012 4 NOTHING ON RECORD BROUGHT OUT BY EITHER OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN HAD BEEN INVESTED ELSEWHERE. THEREFORE, T HE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A .O. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE OR DERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AL L THE INCOME EARNED FROM SALARY, RENT AND OTHER SOURCES & AGRICULTURAL INCOM E. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO SUCH CREDITS. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FILING RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS AND THE COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SINCE 2001-02 ARE PLACED ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN TH E THREE DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED CASH FLOW STAT EMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY EITHER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION THAT THE CASH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FOR PU RCHASE OF SOME PROPERTY WHICH ULTIMATELY HAD NOT BEEN MATERIALIZED AND THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED BACK AS PER REQUIREMENT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THERE IS NO THING ON RECORD BROUGHT OUT BY EITHER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT CASH HA S BEEN INVESTED ELSEWHERE. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED AND TH E SAME CANNOT BE ADDED TO ITA NO.54(ASR)/2012 5 THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO D ELETE THE ADDITIONS SO MADE AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.54(ASR)/2012 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. JAGJIT SINGH CHAHAL, AMRITSAR. 2. THE ITO WARD 4(2), AMRITSAR. 3. THE CIT(A), ASR. 4. THE CIT, ASR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.
Mehul