Ramadeep Singh, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5484/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 548420114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRISEILLA SINGEIT
• Assessee Lawyers: G S SACHDEV
• Keywords: Source of fund; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RP TOLANI, JM AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM ITA NO. 5484/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 RAMANDEEP SINGH VS. ITO, OSD RANGE 5 B 214, DERAWAL NAGAR NEW DELHI DELHI 110 009 PAN: AYJPS 7841 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:- SH.G.S.SACHDEV, C.A. RESPONDENT BY:- MS.PRISEILLA SINGEIT, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VIII, NEW DELHI DT. 20.9.2010 PERTAININ G TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF:- THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME ON 30.10.2006 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,91,00 0/-. THE ISSUES THAT COME FOR OUR CONSIDERATION ARE WHETHER THE CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,39,000/- U/S 143(3) O F THE ACT, OUT OF AN AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS.1,95,400/- MADE BY THE AO. THE AO ADDED UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.19,000/- ON 19.1.200 6 IN CITI BANK ACCOUNT AND A CREDIT OF RS.20,000/- ON 18.7.2005 T HROUGH ICICI BANK IN THE DRAWINGS A/C WITH IMPETUS TECHNOLOGIES AND AN A MOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH ITA 5484/DEL/2010 PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 RAMANDEEP SINGH U/S 69C ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABL E TO JUSTIFY HIS WITHDRAWALS VIS--VIS PERSONAL AND HOUSE HOLD EXPEN SES. THE CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A , DESPITE VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE FOR THE REASON THAT THE PROBLEMS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE BEYOND HIS CONTROL AND HE WAS PR EVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR PRODUCING THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. COMING TO THE DISALLOWANCES AND ADDITIONS, WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SALARY FROM THE COMPANY MOKSHA BU SINESS SOLUTIONS P.LTD. TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,49,000/-, DIVIDEND FROM MOKSHA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS P.LTD. TO THE TUNE OF RS.39,400/- AND REM UNERATION FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO THE TUNE OF RS.49,000/-. BESID ES THE ABOVE INCOME THE ASSESSEE ALSO EARNED TAX FREE SHARE OF PROFIT F ROM A PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S IMPETUS TECHNOLOGIES, WHICH IS A 100% EOU, FOR AN AMOUNT OF ABOVE RS.50 LAKHS. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS CASH FLOW, AND THE SOURCES OF INCOME, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ADDIT ION OF RS.19,000/- AND 20,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNCA LLED FOR AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 5. COMING TO PERSONAL DRAWINGS THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNMARRIED AND LIVING WITH HIS PARENTS. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE A PERSONAL VEHICLE. TELEPHONE COST, TRAVE LLING AND CONVEYANCE ITA 5484/DEL/2010 PAGE 3 OF 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 RAMANDEEP SINGH COST ETC. WERE BORNE BY M/S IMPETUS TECHNOLOGY AND FBT WAS PAID BY THE M/S IMPETUS TECHNOLOGY ON THE SAME. UNDER TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES NO ADDITIONCAN BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INSUFFICIENT D RAWINGS. THUS THE ADDITION IS BAD IN LAW AND HEREBY DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH DECEMBER,2012. SD/- SD/- (R.P.TOLANI) (J.SUDHA KAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: THE 7 TH DECEMBER, 2012 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR ON: 3. DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE SECOND MEMBER ON: 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER ON: 5. APPROVED DRAFT CAME TO SR.P.S. ON: 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7. FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK ON : 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GIVEN TO HEAD CLERK ON: 9. DATE OF DISPATCHING THE ORDER ON :