Sh. Meena Bawa, Faridabad V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5823/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6503 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEDOBINA CHAUDHARI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Source of fund
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5823 /DEL./201 5 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2010 - 11 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SM C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMB E R ITA NO. 5823 /DEL./201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 11 MEENA BAWA C/O SATS CORPORATION 160, SECTOR - 21B FARIDABAD VS. ITO WARD - 48(1), NEW DELHI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: A KAPB7378J ) ASSESSEE BY: SH. GURJEET SINGH , CA REVENUE BY: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHARI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 06 / 0 3 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09 / 0 3 /201 7 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - XX I , NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 11 . 0 8 .201 5 FOR THE A.Y. 20 10 - 11 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THAT THE LD C1T (A) 21, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS, WHILE UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS 20,00,000/ - U/S 69 A OF IT ACT. 2. THAT THE LD C1T (A) NEW DELHI HAS ARBITRARILY REJECTED THE EXPLANATIONS OF ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ADMITTED FACT THAT ENTIRE CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE IN JOINT ACCOUNT WAS BELONGING TO HER PAGE 2 OF 6 HUSBAND WHICH WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE LD AO ALSO. HENCE NO ADDITION COULD BE SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . THAT THE LD CIT (A) NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE ADMITTING PART EVIDENCE AND REJECTING OTHER EQUALLY RELEVANT EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE , IT IS CONTENDED THAT DECISION OF THE LD CIT (A) IS ARBITRARY & PURELY BASED ON SURMISES & CONJECTURES & VOID - AB - INITIO. 4 . THAT THE LD CIT (A) NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS WHITE A CTING BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION AS THE ENTIRE ADDITION (IF ANY ) HAVE TO BE MADE WILL BE HANDS OF SH D.S BAWA THEREFORE ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION & IS NULL & VOID AND NON - EST. 5. THAT THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO BRING THE COMPLETE EVIDENCE & DETAILS ON RECORD & EXPLAIN THE MATERIAL/EXPLANATIONS PLACED ON RECORD. THE DECISIONS HAS BEEN MADE IN MOST HURRIED MANNER & AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6 . THAT YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED AIR INFORMATION REGARDING DEPOSIT OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 35 LAC BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. SHE EXPLAINED THE SOURCES THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS BELONGING TO HER HUSBAND, WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK TO HER HUSBAND THROUGH HIS BANK ACCOU NT. THE EXPLANATION WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 35 LAC. PAGE 3 OF 6 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ALL THE EVIDENCES WERE FILED BUT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EVIDENCE OF RS. 15 LAC AND ACCORDINGLY DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LAC AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 20 LAC. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING A JOINT SAVING BANK A/C SB 01 / 010022 (PB PG. 16 - 23). SO, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS THE MONEY BELONGS TO SH. D.S. BAWA. BEING THE FIRST NAME HOLDER IN SAVING BANK A/C, ASSESSEE'S CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 35,00, 000/ - . ASSESSEE IN HER FIRST REPLY BEFORE AO PLACED AT AO ORDER DT. 28.3.2013 PG. 1 PARA 3(I) SPECIFICALLY REPLIED THAT DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS. 35,00,000/ - BELONG TO HER HUSBAND D.S. BAWA & IMMEDIATELY AFTER A DEPOSIT OF THIS CASH SAME WAS TRANSFE RRED TO ASSESSEE'S HUSBAND ANOTHER SAVING BANK A/C NO. A/C SB 01 / 010022 AVAILABLE AT PB PG. 16 - 23. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS THE MONEY BELONG TO SH. D.S. BAWA. ALTERNATIVELY & WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE ON MERITS, THE D ETAIL OF DEPOSIT IN SAVING BANK A/C & SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IS AS UNDER, THE CHART SUBMITTED BEFORE AO & CIT(A) IS AT PB PG. 47 , IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: - PAGE 4 OF 6 DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT (RS.) SOURCE OF FUNDS DELETED BY CIT(A) 31.10.2009 9,00,000 CASH WITHDRAWN FROM SAVING BANK A/C NO. 10022 OF CORPORATION BANK BY SH. D.S. BAWA, HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE DT. 5/9/2009 (RS. 13,00,000) {PB PG. 19} CIT(A) CONFIRMED ADDITION 89,00,000/ - 16.03.2010 26.03.2010 30.03.2010 8,00,000 9 . 0 . 000 9 . 0 . 000 CASH WITHDRAWN FROM SAVING BANK A/C NO. 10022 OF CORPORATION BANK BY SH. D.S. BAWA, HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE DT. 14/12/2009 (RS. 1,00,000) {PB PG. 19} CASH WITHDRAWN FROM SAVING BANK A/C NO. 2326 OF CORPORATION BANK BY SH. SUNIL SINGH BAWA (RS 3,58,200) {PB PG. 25} CASH WITHDRAWN FROM SAVING BANK A/C NO. 2326 OF CORPORATION BANK BY SUNIL SINGH BAWA, BROTHER IN LAW OF ASSESSEE DT. 24.12.2009 (RS 9,00,000) {PB PG. 26} CAPITAL WITHDRAWN IN CASH BY SH D.S. BAWA FROM M/S SATS CORPORATION DT. 16. 3.2010 (RS. 15,00,000) {PB PG. 45} (AO & CIT(A) ACCEPTED SAID AMOUNT GIVEN RELIEF TO ASSESSEE) OUT OF RS. 26,00,000/ - CIT(A) ACCEPTED RS. 15,00,000/ - & CONFIRMED ADDITION RS. 11,00,000/ - FROM ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT CIT(A) HAS GI VEN PART RELIEF RELYING UPON THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESS EE THAT AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BV SH. D.S. BAWA, HUSBAND O F ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,00,000/ - & OVERLOOKED THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSION RELATING TO CASH WITHDRAWN IN SAVING BANK A/C NO. 10022 DT. 5.9.2009 AMOUNTING RS. 13,00,000/ - & DT. 14.12.2009 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,00,000/ - . CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM SAVING BANK ACCOUNT 10022 HAS BEEN RETURNED TO SAME BANK PAGE 5 OF 6 ACCOUNT & ASSESSEE IS NOWHERE RELATED TO SAID CASH DEPOSIT AS PER PB. PG. 19, 20 & 22. I.T RETURN OF SH. D.S. BAWA IS AVAILABLE AT PB PG. 29. AS REGARDS CASH WITHDRAWN FROM SAVING BANK A/C NO. 2326 OF CORPORATION BANK BY SH. SUNIL SINGH BAWA AMOUNTING RS. 12,58,200/ - , THE DETAIL OF CASH WITHDRAWAL & DEPOSIT IS AT PB PG. 14. HERE, LD. CIT(A) OVERLOOKED THAT THE SAID CASH WAS GIVEN BY SH. SUNIL SINGH BAWA TO HIS B ROTHER SH. D.S. BAWA. I.T RETURN OF SH. SUNIL SINGH BAWA IS AT PB PG. 30 . 5. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE I AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION WHICH COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR AND THEREFORE THE EXPLANATION IS FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY . I N MY VIEW THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ADDITION SO SUSTA INED IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS , ALL GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7 . P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 . 0 3 .201 7. ( B.P. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMB E R DATED: 09 . 0 3 .2017 PAGE 6 OF 6 NARENDER COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 7 .0 3 .2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 8 .0 3 .2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 09 .3.2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 09 .3.2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.