ITO, Rewari V. Smt. Maya Devi, Haryana

ITA 6027/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96921 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEVI SHARAN SINGH
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH SMC SMC SMC SMC : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 6027/DEL/2014 6027/DEL/2014 6027/DEL/2014 6027/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2007 2007 2007 2007 - -- - 08 0808 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -2, 2,2, 2, REWARI. REWARI. REWARI. REWARI. VS. VS. VS. VS. SMT. MAYA DEVI, SMT. MAYA DEVI, SMT. MAYA DEVI, SMT. MAYA DEVI, W/O SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR, W/O SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR, W/O SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR, W/O SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR, VILLAGE JAKHALA VILLAGE JAKHALA VILLAGE JAKHALA VILLAGE JAKHALA, ,, , DISTRICT REWARI, DISTRICT REWARI, DISTRICT REWARI, DISTRICT REWARI, HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. PAN : BNYPD1759B. PAN : BNYPD1759B. PAN : BNYPD1759B. PAN : BNYPD1759B. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DEVI SHARAN SINGH, SR.DR. RESPONDENT BY : NONE. DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2015 13.07.2015 13.07.2015 13.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.08.2015 03.08.2015 03.08.2015 03.08.2015 ORDE ORDE ORDE ORDER R R R THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), ROHTA K DATED 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE IS BEING DECIDED EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED DR. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD.CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.13,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED/UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE ITA-6027/DEL/2014 2 SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD REGARDING THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT S. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT AS P ER STATEMENT OF PURPORTED BUYER; HE HAD NO RELATION WIT H THE ASSESSEE AND HAD NO DIRECT INTRODUCTION. THEREFORE, A PRUDENT PERSON WOULD NOT ADVANCE OF SUM OF RS.13 LAC WITHOUT CREATION OF ANY DOCUMENT EVIDENCING SUCH PAYMENT. HENCE, AS PER PRINCIPAL OF PREPONDERANCE O F THE PROBABILITIES, THE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE HELD AS GENUI NE AND HENCE, RIGOR OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 COMES INTO PLAY. 4. LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR A ND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARN ED CIT(A). I FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT AN AMOUNT OF `13 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM ONE SHRI NITYA NAND S/O SHRI MOOL CHAND, R/O VPO NAICHANA, TEHSIL BAWAL, DISTRICT REWARI ON 30.04. 2006 AS AN ADVANCE MONEY (BAYANA) FOR SALE OF PROPERTY. LATER ON, THE SAID DEAL COULD NOT MATERIALIZE AND THE AMOUNT OF `13 LAKHS WA S RETURNED TO SHRI NITYA NAND AND LATER ON, THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD FOR `3 5.20 LAKHS ON 08.01.2007. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED IN HIS APPELLAT E ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF SHRI NITYA NAND HAD ACC EPTED THE SOURCE OF HIS DEPOSITS. MOREOVER, THE STATEMENT OF SHR I NITYA NAND WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH HE CERTIF IED THE PAYMENT OF `13 LAKHS ON 30.04.2006 IN CASH TOWARDS BAY ANA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE SOURCE OF CASH RECEIVED BY SHRI NITYA NAND IN LATTERS ASSESSMENT ORDER. REGARDIN G THE REPAYMENT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBJECTION THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO TAKE MO NEY FROM SHRI ITA-6027/DEL/2014 3 MANOJ YADAV AND SMT. NIRMALA DEVI COULD NOT BE SUSTAI NED AS AMOUNTS WERE TAKEN FROM FAMILY MEMBERS FOR UTILIZATION FOR F AMILY WELFARE OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF A JOINTLY HELD PROPERTY. T HE CIT(A) FURTHER RECORDED THAT IN ALL THE CASES OF CO-SHARERS OF THE FAM ILY LAND IN QUESTION, THE CASH RECEIVED BY THEM WAS ACCEPTED IN TH E PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND THE ADDITION IN TH IS CASE IS WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, I HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL-REASONED REASONABLE ORDER AND N O INTERFERENCE IN HIS ORDER IS CALLED FOR, WHICH IS CONF IRMED AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 & 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSE D. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD AUGUST, 2015. SD/- (G. (G. (G. (G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -2, REWARI. 2, REWARI. 2, REWARI. 2, REWARI. 2. RESPONDENT : SMT. MAYA DEVI, SMT. MAYA DEVI, SMT. MAYA DEVI, SMT. MAYA DEVI, W/O SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR, W/O SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR, W/O SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR, W/O SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR, VILLAGE JAKHALA, DISTRICT REWARI, HARYANA. VILLAGE JAKHALA, DISTRICT REWARI, HARYANA. VILLAGE JAKHALA, DISTRICT REWARI, HARYANA. VILLAGE JAKHALA, DISTRICT REWARI, HARYANA. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR