Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3953 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
11-01-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC 1
Next Hearing Date
17-08-2016
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
31-10-2014
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-5871/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2008-09) MANJIT SINGH, WZ-215B, GC-6, G-BLOCK, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110058. PAN-AVMPS4690R ( APPELLANT) VS IT O , WARD-27(4), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY S/SH. SALIL AGGARWAL, SHAILESH GUPTA, MADHUR AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY SH. N.J.SINGH, SR. DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 21/08/2014 OF CIT(A)-XVI II, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAININ G AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 22,30,540/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,38,540/- . 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAININ G THE ADDITION OF RS.19,92,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BANK DEPOSITS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S RUBY MOTORS AND WRO NGLY TREATING IT AS TO BE THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.1. THAT IN DOING SO, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE BASIC FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER IN M/S RUBY MOTORS AND THE AFORESAID AMOUNT S WERE DEPOSITED BY OTHER PARTNER AS HIS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION, WHICH WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND AS SUCH, NO ADDITIONS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE AND SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS FURTHER IGNORED THE BASIC FACT THAT REQUISITE DOCUM ENTS WERE FILED AND EXPLANATION WAS TENDERED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER, WHO FAILED IN CONDUCTING ENQUIRIES AND BASED HIS DECISI ON PURELY ON SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND AS SUCH, TH E ADDITION SO MADE AND SUSTAINED SHOULD BE DELETED AS SUCH. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING ADDITIONS I N THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY, WITHOUT GIVING ANY FAIR AND PROPE R OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY, THEREBY, VIOL ATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAINING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 23 4A AND 2348 OF THE ACT, WHICH ARE NOT LEVIABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE APP ELLANT. DATE OF HEARING 07.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.01.2018 I.T.A .NO.-5871/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 9 2. THE LD AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE GROUNDS RAISED SU BMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ADDITION HAS B EEN MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED IN APPEAL BY THE CIT(A) CONTRARY TO FA CTS AND LAW. THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE HAS MORE THAN ADEQUATELY AND SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WITH THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM M/S RUBY MOTORS. THE FR ESH EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE AND DESPITE THIS THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED . THE SAID ACT, IT WAS SUBMITTED, WAS CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LEGAL P OSITION. THE TAX AUTHORITIES, IT WAS SUBMITTED, HAVE PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE MONEY IS UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FRESH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WITHO UT ANY REBUTTAL, ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED. REFERRING TO THE RECORD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CONSISTENTLY RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE SPECIFIC BANK ACCOUNT WAS OPENED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRM M/S RUBY MOTORS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD FILED ALL SUPPORTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP D EED COMPRISING OF 2 PARTNERS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD 10% SHARE AND MR. MANJEET SINGH BEDI 90% SHARE ARE EVIDENCES LYING UNR EBUTTED ON RECORD. THE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE WITH MR. MANJEET SINGH BED I ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED FOR PROPERTIES SOLD. SUPPORTIN G EVIDENCES WERE ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD. M/S. RUBY MOTORS, THE PARTN ERSHIP FIRM HAD PURCHASED CERTAIN DIESEL GENSETS. HOWEVER, ON ACCOU NT OF ILLNESS ON THE PART OF THE PARTNERS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, BUSINESS COULD NOT BE DONE. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE BANK ACC OUNT IN THE SPECIFIC BANK I.E. ALLAHABAD BANK HAD BEEN OPENED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FIRM M/S. RUBY MOTORS. I N VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ON THE SPECIFIC DATE, THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS OPENED. MR. MANJEET SINGH BEDI, THE MAJOR PARTNER BEING 84 YEAR O LD ON THE SAID DATE THEN COULD NOT ACCOMPANY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SA ID FORMALITY AND THUS FOR FULFILLING THE KYC REQUIREMENTS ETC., THE ASSESSEE H AD PROVIDED HIS IDENTIFICATION. THIS MERE FACT BY ITSELF, IT WAS SUB MITTED, CANNOT NECESSARILY NULLIFY ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCES ON RECO RD NAMELY THE RETURNS FILED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM FOR 20092010 ASSESS MENT YEAR, 201011 ASSESSMENT YEAR AND 2011 12 ASSESSMENT YE AR, COPIES OF WHICH WERE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 1-13 AND 15 OF THE PAPER BOO K. I.T.A .NO.-5871/DEL/2014 PAGE 3 OF 9 IN THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE, AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE AFFIRMING THESE FACTS WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFFIDA VIT OF MR. MANJEET SINGH BEDI DATED 23/12/2010, IT WAS SUBMITTED, WA S ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN LISTED FOR HEARING AS A RESULT OF THE ORD ER DATED 11/08/2017 IN MA NO. 46/DEL/2017 PASSED BY THE ITAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT B EEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT. APART FROM RELYING ON THE DOCUMENTS IN TH E PAPER BOOK FILED ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE SAID DECISIONS IN THE PRES ENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE ORDER RECTIFIED. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEE N SUSTAINED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PURELY AND SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE BANK CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT THE ACCOUNT HAD BEEN OPENED ON THE SPECIFIC DATE. HOWEVER, THEY HAVE TAKEN IT AS A PROPRIETORSHIP A CCOUNT AND NOT A PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNT. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IN THE FACE OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE CONCERNED PERS ON I.E. MR. MANJEET SINGH BEDI AND THE ASSESSEE, THE MISTAKE OF THE BANK CANNOT DICTATE THE ISSUE. THE RETURNS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM HA VE BEEN DULY FILED OVER THE YEARS AND ARE AVAILABLE TO THE TAX AUTHORIT IES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OCCASION TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION DID NOT ARISE. 2.2 ON A READING OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IT WAS HIS SUB MISSION THAT IT WOULD SHOW THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED ONLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT SEQUENCE OF MONEY RECEIVED IN CASH AND MONEY DEPOS ITED IN CASH ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) IS NOT THERE. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT MERE TIMELINE HAS NO BASIS AS THE FACTS NEED TO BE ALWAY S KEPT IN MIND. 2.3. ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE LETTER DATED 24/ 12/2010 ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQU ESTING THAT THE STATEMENT OF SH. MANJEET SINGH BEDI MAY BE RECORDED AT HIS RESIDENCE IF NEED BE AT HIS COST AS HE WAS AN OLD MAN WHO COULD NO T COME AND GIVE HIS DEPOSITION. IN THE EVENTUALITY HIS AFFIDAVIT AVAILABLE ON RECORD NEEDED TO BE CROSS TESTED OR CROSS CHECKED. FOR THE SAID PURPOSE, ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF FRES H EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), COPY PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 48 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE 2 OF THE SAME. FOR R EADY- REFERENCE, RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- THAT IN LETTER DTD. 24.12.2010 (7-8) THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED THE AO FOR RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF SH. BEDI AS U NDER :- I.T.A .NO.-5871/DEL/2014 PAGE 4 OF 9 'IN CASE, YOUR GOODSELF FEELS HIS STATEMENT CAN ALS O BE RECORDED BY DEPLOYING THE APPROPRIATE OFFICER SINCE HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO MOVE AND THE ASSESSEE IS READY TO RENDER ALL POSSIBLE HELP AND ASSISTANCE INCLUDING T HE BEARING OF COST FOR THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE AO FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM D ID NOT DO SO. IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE OF ADDITION ARISES ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF SAID BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THE SAID BANK ACC OUNT AS BELONGING TO RUBY MOTORS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHES A VALID CAUSE FOR OPENING THE SAID IT.MK ACCOUNT OF RUBY MOTORS THROUGH MANJI T SINGH, ALTHOUGH IT BELONGED TO RUBY MOTORS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACT OF OPENING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RUBY MOTORS, PARTNERSHIP FIRM B Y SH. MANJIT SINGH, ASSESSEE, IN THIS MANNER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BE LONGING TO MANJIT SINGH, INDIVIDUAL. NOW, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISCHARGING ALL POSSIBLE ONUSES TO PROVE THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT AS B ELONGING TO RUBY MOTORS, HAS BEEN REQUESTING THE AO TO RECORD THE ST ATEMENT OF SH. BEDI, IF HE DISBELIEVES THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND W ITHOUT REBUTTING THE SAME AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, CANNOT, SIMPLY FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN OPENED BY MANJIT SINGH AS IND IVIDUAL, TAKE AN INFERENCE THAT IT BELONGS TO MANJIT SINGH. HENCE, T HE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, ALTHOUGH IN THE BANKING RECORDS APPEARS AS BELONGING TO MANJIT SINGH BUT IT, IN FAC T, BELONGS TO RUBY MOTORS. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 2.4. IN SUPPORT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IN THE AFORESAID APPLICATION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS.19,92,000/- WAS SUPPORTE D BY THE SALE DEEDS OF THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE AT PAPER BOOK PA GE NO. 3 WAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON. SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- SH. BEDI PURCHASED VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED FOLLO WING PROPERTIES IN THE YEAR 2004 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PLOT NO. B - 26 VASHIHST PARK PANKHA ROAD, NEW DELH I. (24 - 25) PLOT NO. B - 27 VASHIHST PARK PANKHA ROAD, NEW DELH I. (26 - 27) PLOT NO. S - 66, 67, 68 & 69 VASHIHST PARK PANKHA R OAD, NEW DELHI. (28 - 31) THESE PLOTS WERE AGREED TO BE SOLD TO MIS. APOLLO E QUIPMENT (P) LTD. VIDE AGREEMENT TO SELL DTD. 29.07.2006 (16 - 19) FO R RS. 2.25 CRORES. SH. BEDI GOT THE ADVANCE PART PAYMENTS FROM TIME TO TIM E FROM THE SAID COMPANY AS UNDER: - DATE AMOUNT (RS. ) EVIDENCE PB P G. NO 10.08.2006 500000 CASH 20 26.11.2006 500000 -- DO -- 21 28.02.2007 850000 -- DO -- 22 29.12.2007 500000 -- DO -- 23 TOTAL 23,50,000/ - I.T.A .NO.-5871/DEL/2014 PAGE 5 OF 9 2.5 RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) ITO VS GURINDER KAUR IN ITA NO.1312/DEL/2013; (II) ITO VS KAMAL KUMAR KISHORE IN ITA NO.398/LUCK/2012; AND (III) ITO VS ISHWAR SINGH VATS IN ITA NO.96/DEL//2012. 2.6. HE SUBMITTED THAT SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO ORDER DATED 25/04/2013 WHEREIN THE ITAT TAKING NOTE OF THE D ECISIONS OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(A) VS BHAICHAND N.GAN DHI (1982) 11 TAXMAN 59 (BOM.) AND ANAND RAM RATIANI VS CIT (1 997) 223 ITR 544 (GAU.), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE O F BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, MERE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ONCE T HEY ARE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED CANNOT BE ADDED EITHER UNDER SECTION 68 OR 69 OR ANY OTHER SECTION. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT T HE ADDITION ON FACTS DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. THE LD. SR.DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW AND IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED. 4. THE LD. AR OBJECTING TO THE SAID PRAYER SUBMITTED THA T NO FRESH EVIDENCE IS BEING FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, ACCORDINGLY, MATTER MAY NOT BE REMANDED ON THE WHIMS OF THE REVENUE. THE EVIDENCES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE AO BY WAY OF REMAND BY THE CIT(A). THE EVIDENCES HAV E BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). THEY HAVE NO T EITHER BEEN ASSAILED NOR REBUTTED BY THE AUTHORITIES OR EVEN BY THE SR.DR. THUS, WITHOUT BRINGING OUT ANY SINGLE REASON, THE PRAYER FOR REM AND WAS STRONGLY OBJECTED TO. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON ORDER DAT ED 18/11/2014 IN ITA VS GURINDER KAUR (COPY FILED), SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS INV ITED TO THE FOLLOWING EXTRACT OF THE ORDER:- 5. WHEN LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS AS KED WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID IN FACT MAKE FURTHER INQU IRIES ON THE LINES DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO CONFIRM THE SAME. A PLAIN LOOK AT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT INDIC ATE ANY SUCH INQUIRY EITHER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SIMPLY REITERATE D HIS EARLIER FINDINGS AND DID NOT TAKE TROUBLE TO MAKE ANY INQUIRIES. A S LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RIGHTLY CONTENDS, RELYING UPON HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS FCS INTER NATIONAL MARKETING LTD. (283 ITR 32), THE ASSESSEE CANNOT FACE ENDLESS LITIGATION JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFUSES TO SHED HIS I NERTIA AND MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, FOLLOWING HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MAYAWATI (3 38 ITR 563), AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 CANNOT BE MADE FOR THIS R EASON EITHER. THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER, HOWEVER, IN THE GIVEN FACTS I S SOMEWHAT ACADEMIC AND WE NEED NOT DEAL WITH THE SAME IN MUCH DETAIL. I.T.A .NO.-5871/DEL/2014 PAGE 6 OF 9 5. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE PROCEEDING TO ADDRESS, THE RELEVANT FIN DING OF THE CIT(A), IT IS APPROPRIATE TO FIRST SET OUT THE FACTS AND TH E REASONING AS APPRECIATED BY THE CIT(A):- IN THIS REGARD, IT IS FOUND THAT SHRI MANJEET SING H BEDI HAS DEPOSITED CASH AS PER UNDER:- DATE AMOUNT 22/12/2007 8,00,000/- 24/12/2007 8,22,000/- 31/03/2008 3,70,000/- TOTAL 19,92,000/- IN THIS CONNECTION, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT SOUR CE OF FUND WAS ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVE AGAINST PROPERTY SITUATED AT SAGARPUR AND PROOF OF BYANA WAS ATTACHED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OPP ORTUNITY WAS GRANTED WHEREIN VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED 8/7/20 14 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERY CATEGORICALLY REPLIED ON THE BYANA AGREEMENT BY OBSERVING THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF CASH PAYMENT TO THE SELLER OF THE ABOVE SAID BYANA RECEIPT. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER OBSER VED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ABOVE PROPERTY BACKGROUND WAS FIXED FO R SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2.25 CRORES FOR SALE TO M/S APOLLO EQUIPMENT S PVT LTD AND EARNEST MONEY OF RS. 5 LACS WAS RECEIVED VIDE CHEQUE DATED 12/7/2006. THUS, SOURCES OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 19,92,000/- HAS NO T BEEN EXPLAINED. IN THIS REGARD ON AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI MANJEET SINGH S /O MS KIRAN SINGH DATED 23/12/2010 HAS ALSO BEEN FILED WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS. 5 LACS THROUGH CHEQUE AS O N 29/7/2006 AND RS. 23,50,0001- THROUGH CASH ON VARIOUS DATES AS UN DER:- DATE AMOUNT 10/8/2006 5,00,000/- 26/11/2006 5,00,000/- 28/12/2007 8,50,000/- 29/12/2007 5,00,000/- TOTAL 23,50,000/- IN THIS REGARD, THERE IS NO SEQUENCE IN AMOUNT RECE IVED BY SHRI MANJEET SINGH IN CASH AND DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 19,92,000/-, AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS HAS BEEN RECEIVE D IN THE YEAR 2006 AND AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE MONTH OF DECE MBER, 2007 THAT HAVING NO LOGIC TO EXPLAIN. TO UNDERSTAND THIS AMOU NT RECEIVED IN CASH DATE-WISE AND AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT , NAMELY, ALLAHABAD BANK BY SHRI MANJEET SINGH IS PRODUCED HE RE UNDER:- DATES CASH DEPOSITED IN ALLAHABAD BANK (IN RS.) DATES CASH RECEIVED (IN RS.) 22.12.2007 8,00,000 10/8/2006 5,00,000/- 24.12.2007 8,22,000 26/11/2006 5,00,000/- 31.03.2008 3,70,000 28/02/2007 8,50,000/- TOTAL 19,92,000 29/12/2007 5,00,000/- TOTAL 23,50,000/- FROM THE ABOVE CHART, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT EVEN AF TER ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN ALLAHABAD BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.19,92,000/-. THERE IS NO SEQUENCE IN MONEY RECEIVED IN CASH AND MONEY DEPOSIT IN CASH . THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER I.T.A .NO.-5871/DEL/2014 PAGE 7 OF 9 WHEREIN HE HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.19,92,000/- ON T HIS ACCOUNT. THUS, GROUND NO. 2.1 TO 2.4 OF THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 5.1 IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO ALSO REPRODUCE PARA 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER:- {9} GROUND NO.3 PERTAINS TO ACTION OF ASSESSING OF FICER BY WHICH HE HAS TREATED ALLAHABAD BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF S HRI MANJEET SINGH. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS FOUND THAT APPELLANT HAS SUBM ITTED THAT NEW ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF M/S RUBI MOTORS WAS OPENED ON 22/12/ 2007 BUT PAN OF SARDAR MANJEET SINGH HAS BEEN GIVEN. SO, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THAT BANK ACCOUNT WAS PERTAINING TO SARDAR MANJEET SINGH NOT TO M/S RUBI MOTORS WHICH IS A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 5.2. IT WOULD ALSO BE RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE TO REPRODU CE THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSING THE CIT(A):- AT THE OUTSET, THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT BELON GS TO ASSESSEE. THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT BELONG TO ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL. IT BELONGS TO M/S. RUBY MOTORS. PARTNER SHIP FIRM CONSISTING OF ASSESSEE AND ONE SH. MANJIT SINGH S/O . SH. KIRAN SINGH BEDI (BEDI) AS PARTNERS. THE BANK ACCOUNT STA NDS OPENED IN THE NAME AS 'RUBY MOTORS'. IN THIS CASE, IT SO HAPPENED THAT THE ASSESSEE I.E. MANJIT SINGH S/O. SH. RAWEL SINGH FORMED A PARTNERSHIP WITH ONE SH. MANJI T SINGH BEDI SON OF SH. KIRAN SINGH BEDI (BEDI) ON 27.11.2007 VIDE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DTD. 27.11.2007 (1 - 2) UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF 'MRS. RUBY MOTORS' FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF GENERATORS ON RENT. SH. BEDI WAS AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS. HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO MOVE. A S PER THE PREVALENT BANKING NORMS. ALL PARTNERS NEEDS TO PHYSICAL VISIT IN BANK FOR OPENING THE BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, SH. BEDI WAS NOT PHYSICA LLY FIT FOR VISITING THE BANK. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE SH. MANJIT OPENED THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF RUBY MOTORS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF PARTNE RSHIP FIRM M/S. RUBY MOTORS, HOWEVER, AS SOLE PROPRIETOR OF RUBY MO TORS ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSES OF OPENING BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF RUBY MOTORS WHICH, FOR ALL PURPOSES BELONGED TO RUBY MOTORS, PA RTNERSHIP FIRM. ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDED HIS VOTER ID CARD COPY (4) T O THE BANK WHICH WAS NECESSARY AS PER KYC NORMS. THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS O PENED ON 22.12.2007 (3) WHILE THE PARTNERSHIP CAME INTO EXIS TENCE ON 27.11.2007. HENCE, FOR THE LIMITED BANKING PURPOSES, THE ACCOUNT HAD TO BE OPENED BY SH. MANJIT, HOWEVER, THIS ACCOUNT B ELONGS TO PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. RUBY MOTORS AND ALSO FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES. THE AO HAS TREATED THIS BANK ACCOUNT AS OF ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT BELONGS TO PARTN ERSHIP FIRM STANDS PROVED FROM FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:- - LETTER DTD. 24.09,2010 TO AO (ABSTRACTED IN ASSTT. ORDER ON PG. 2). - AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEE FILED TO AO (ABSTRACTED ON PG . 2 OF AO) - PARTNERSHIP DEED DTD. 27.11.2007. (1-2) - BANK STATEMENT. (3) - VOTER ID CARD OF ASSESSEE FURNISHED TO BANK. (4 ) - AFFIDAVIT OF SH. BEDI TO AO. (5-6) - LETTER DTD. 24.12.2010 FILED TO AO ON 27.12.2010. (7-8) ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES - B/S. OF RUBY MOTORS AS ON 31.03.2008, (9) - B/S. OF RUBY MOTORS AS ON 31.03.2009. (10) - ITR OF RUBY MOTORS OF A.Y. 2009 - 2010. (11) I.T.A .NO.-5871/DEL/2014 PAGE 8 OF 9 - B/S. OF RUBY MOTORS AS ON 31.03.2010. (12) - ITR OF RUBY MOTORS OF A.Y. 2010 - 2011. (13) - B/S. OF RUBY MOTORS AS ON 31.03.2011. (14) - ITR OF RUBY MOTORS OF A.Y. 2011-2012. (15) - ITR AND COPY OF I.T. RETURN OF MANJIT SINGH SHOWING THE INCOME FROM RUBY MOTORS BEING INTEREST AND SA LARY FROM RUBY MOTORS. (32-41). RUBY MOTORS DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME OF A. Y. 2008 - 2009, SINCE, NO RENTING COULD BE STARTED. HOWEVER, THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS PART OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF RUBY MOTORS AS ON 31.03.2008, 31.03.2009, 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011 ETC.(9, 10, 12 & 14). RETURN S OF RUBY MOTORS SUBSEQUENT YEARS WERE HOWEVER FILED. BALANCE SHEETS AND ITR'S OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS ARE ALREADY ATTACHED. THIS BANK AC COUNT STANDS DECLARED AS WELL AS ASSESSED AS OF RUBY MOTORS. 5.3. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ADMITTEDLY THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT ARE ACC EPTED AS FUNDS BELONGING TO MR MANJIT SINGH BEDI WHO ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ADVANCING AGE AND INABILITY TO MOVE COULD NOT VISIT THE BANK IN ORDER TO OPEN THE SPECIFIC BANK ACCOUNT. THE SPECIFIC BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN OPENED AS ASSESSEES PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM INSTEAD OF THE ACCOUNT OF T HE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS THE ASSESSEE AND HIS PARTNER HAD IN TENDED AS THE PAN DETAILS ETC. AND PRESENCE OF ONLY ASSESSEE AT THE B ANK COULD BE FULFILLED AS REQUIRED FOR FULFILLING THE KYC NORMS ETC. IT IS A MATT ER OF FACT THAT THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS SHOWN TO HAVE FILED RETUR NS OF INCOME. BUSINESS ADMITTEDLY DID NOT STRAIGHTAWAY TAKE OFF DUE TO PHYSICAL INFIRMITY ILLNESS ETC OF THE PARTNERS. THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE ASSE SSEE AS WELL AS OF MR MANJIT SINGH BEDI ARE ON RECORD AFFIRMING THE POSITION CONSISTENTLY ARGUED BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE ITAT. OWNERSHIP OF SPECIFIC PIECES OF LAND BY MR MANJIT SINGH BEDI AND THEIR SALE ALONG WITH THE STATED AMOUNTS IS A MATTER OF RECORD . THE RECORD HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT-A AND IT HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED THE AMOUNTS ARE SHOWN T O BE DEPOSITED AFTER THE SALE PROCEEDS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY MR MANJ IT SINGH BEDI WHICH ALSO IS A MATTER OF RECORD. IN THESE PECULIAR CIRCUMS TANCES THE OBJECTION OF THE CIT-A THAT THEY WERE NOT IN A SEQUENC E HAS NO MEANING WHATSOEVER AS ADMITTEDLY FUNDS HAVE BEEN RECEIV ED FIRST AND DEPOSITS MADE THEREAFTER. SIMILARLY THE PRAYER FOR REMAND BY THE S R.DR WITHOUT ASSAILING THE EVIDENCE OR DEMONSTRATING WHAT FURTH ER FACTS WERE TO BE CROSS VERIFIED HAS NO MEANING WHATSOEVER. AC CORDINGLY IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AS THEY STAND I FIND NO GOOD REASON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. BEING SATISFIED BY THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE AS SESSEE CONSISTENTLY ON RECORD SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCES WHICH I.T.A .NO.-5871/DEL/2014 PAGE 9 OF 9 STAND UN-REBUTTED, THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETE D. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. BEFORE PARTING IT IS DEEMED NECESSARY TO OBSERVE THAT THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED PURELY ON THE BASIS OF THE SPECIFIC FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE ACCORDINGLY REFERENCE TO DECISIONS CITED B Y THE PARTIES HAS NOT BEEN MADE. HOWEVER IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO ALSO OBSE RVE THAT THE RATIOS OF THE DECISIONS TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE TO THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE HAVE BEEN FULLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JANUARY 2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* (DLI)/POONAM(CHD) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI
