The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar. V. Chandan Nijjer, Amritsar.

ITA 61/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9621 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKER
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAM BAHL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.61(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 PAN: AAGPN8739F INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. CHANDAN NIJJER WARD 4(1), D/O SH. JOGINDER SINGH NIJJER, AMRITSAR. VILL. NIJJERPURA, DISTT. AMRITSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.BHAWANI SHANKER, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH.PADAM BAHL, CA DATE OF HEARING: 14/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/08/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM: THIS IS THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2011-12, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2015, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-2, AMRITSAR. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A)-2, AMRITSAR IS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOS ITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH INDUSLND BANK. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-2, AMRITSAR HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN GIVING THE CREDIT OF CASH WITHDRAWN FRO M BANK A LONG PERIOD BACK AND KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HER ON WHICH DISPUTE HAD ARISEN. ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE PURPOSE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM BA NK AND USAGE THEREOF. 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-2, AMRITSAR HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ACCEPTING THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS P ERSONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DRAWS PERSONAL BALANCE SHEETS ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 2 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FILING HER WEALTH-TAX RETURNS REGULARLY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGRICULTURE INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS PER AIR INFORMATION, THERE WAS CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 50,00,000/- IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDUSIND BAN K, A/C NO.0119- J2840-010. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE SO URCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS AND IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT WAS OUT OF CASH IN HAND IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON 31.03.2010 AND THE COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2006, 3 1.03.2007, 31.03.2008, 31.03.2009, 31.03.2010 AND 31.03.2011 W ERE SUBMITTED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED EVIDENCE REGARDING ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS.62,00,00/-, RECEIV ED FROM D.D. INDUSTRIES LTD., ON 09.12.2005 AND 16.12.2005, AND THAT OF RS. 70,48,112/- AND RS.30,00,000/- FROM D.V.M. REALTORS PVT. LTD. ON 15 .03.2008 AND 10.06.2008. IT WAS SUBMITTED AND STATED THAT NO SAL E OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HAD TAKEN PLACED DUE TO DISPUTES. THE CASH DEPOSITE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER S.B. A/C WITH INDUSIND BANK WAS AS UNDER: DATE AMOUNT (RS.) 18.08.2010 5,00,000/- 04.09.2010 20,00,000/- 18.11.2010 25,00,000/- TOTAL: RS.50,00,000/- THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE CASH DEPOSITS WAS CLAIMED TO BE OUT OF CASH IN HAND APPEARING IN HER BALANCE SHEET AT RS.1,31,11,2 93/- FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2010. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DOING ANY ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 3 BUSINESS, THE AO HELD THAT THE QUESTION OF MAINTEN ANCE OF CASH BOOK DID NOT ARISE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTH ER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ONLY WHEN SHE WAS READY TO GIVE SOME ADVANCE TO A PERSON. THE AO HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF CASH LYING AT THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT RELIABLE, WHEN SHE MAINTAINED VAR IOUS BANK ACCOUNTS AND COULD EARN HANDSOME INTEREST INCOME. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH D EPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WIT H INDUSIND BANK. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING THE CREDIT OF CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK A LONG PERIOD BACK AND KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HER, ON WHICH, DISPUTE HAD ARISEN. THE ASSESSE E, AS PER THE LD. DR, HAD ALSO NOT DISCLOSED THE PURPOSE OF WITHDRAWAL O F CASH FROM BANK AND USAGE THEREOF. THE LD. DR FURTHER STATED THAT THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN ACCEPTING THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS PERSONAL B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DRAWS PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FILING HER WEALTH-TAX RETURNS REGULARLY. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 4 CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A DE TAILED ORDER CONSIDERING EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF THE MATTER, W HICH REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE AT OUR HANDS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS AGRICULTURE LAND AND SHE RECEIVED ADVANCE AGAI NST SALE OF LAND FROM M/S D D INDUSTRIES AT RS 62,00,000/- O N 09-12- 2005 AND 16-12-2005. THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 01- 04-2005 TO 31-03-2006 DEPICTING THE DEPO SIT OF RS 62,00,000/-WAS SUBMITTED. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT TO SELL W ITH DVM REALTORS PVT. LTD., (BHARGAVA BUILDERS PVT LTD) AND RECEIVED A SUM OF RS 70,48,112/- AND RS 30,00,000/- ON 15-03-2 008 AND 10-06-2008 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD NAMELY THE COPY OF THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION B Y WAY OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT DATED 15-03-2008 EXECUTED BY THE DEFENDANTS (SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, MS JOGAN NI JJAR, MS CHANDAN NIJJAR, MS ROOHI NIJJAR, AND MS PUNNU NIJJA R) IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF (M/S BHARGAVA BUILDER PVT L TD) WITH RESPECT TO LAND MEASURING 170 KANAL 6 MARLA SITUATE D VILLAGE MEHARBANPURA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT AMRITSAR / SUIT F OR MANDATORY IN JUNCTION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPY OF HER BANK AC COUNT NO. 0119-J 72840-010 IN INDUSIND BANK FOR THE PERIOD 01 -01- 2005 TO 18-11-2010 WHICH REVEALS THE CREDIT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FILING HER INCOME TAX RETURNS REGULARLY FROM A Y 1995-96 ONWARDS AND SHE MAINTAINS HER PERSONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DRAWS HER PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET. THAT THE PERSONAL BALANCE S HEETS WERE FILED BY HER WITH THE DEPARTMENT RIGHT FROM A Y 1995-96 ONWARDS UPTO A Y 2006-07 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSE E STARTED FILING HER RETURNS ONLINE AND THE BALANCE S HEET WAS NOT FILED AFTER A Y 2006-07. HOWEVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS AND BALANCE SHEETS WERE DULY PREPARED AND PLACED IN THE INCOME TAX FILED. THAT THE INCOME TAX RETURNS WERE BASED O N HER BALANCE SHEETS AND REGULARLY FILED. THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THE COPIES OF HER BALANCE SHEETS FOR A Y 2003-04 TO 2010-11 AND THE COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF RETURNS FOR A Y 2003- 04 TO 2006-07 TO SHOW THAT THE BALANCE SHEETS WERE ALSO FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT UPTO A Y 2006-07. ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 5 THE APPELLANT STATED THAT SHE HAD CASH IN HAND OF R S 1,31,11,293/- ON 31-03-2010 IN HER BALANCE SHEET AN D THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS 50,00,000/- DURING A Y 2011-12 CA ME OUT OF THAT CASH IN HAND ON 31-03-2010. THE ASSESSEE PRODU CED THE COPY OF CASH BOOK FOR THE F Y 2010-11. THE AO HAD H OWEVER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BY SAYING THAT THE BALANCE SHEET AND CASH BOOK WAS A CONCOCTED STORY A ND REJECTED THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CASH W AS WITHDRAWN BY HER FOR LAND DEAL WHICH DID NOT MATERI ALIZE AND SHE DEPOSITED THE CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT BACK IN THE BANK AFTER A GAP OF NEARLY 17 T O 18 MONTHS. THE AO HAD LED NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN BY HER HAD BEEN SPENT AND WAS NOT AVAILAB LE FOR RE-DEPOSIT. THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HER ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ADDITION- A) DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR IN THE CASE O F SHRI RAM NATH & RAJ KUMAR IN ITA NO. 336(ASR)/2006 8S ITA NO. 337(ASR)/2006 DATED 25-01-2007. B) DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB 8& HAIYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHIV CHARAN DASS VS CIT, REPORTED IN 126 ITR 263. C) DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF ITO VS NAVDEEP SINGH IN ITA NO. 24(ASR)/2013 DATED 17-04- 2013. D) DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR IN THE CASE O F ACIT VS. INDERPAL SINGH AHUJA IN ITA NO. 132(ASR)/2006. E) DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, AHMADABAD IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. ANAND AUTORIDE LTD IN 99 ITD 227. F) DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, DELHI BENCH B IN THE C ASE OF ITO VS. MRS DEEPALI SEHGAL IN ITA NO. 5660 /DEL /20 12 DATED 05-09-2014. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE ARGUED THAT THE JURISDICTIO NAL ITAT BENCH AND PUNJAB HIGH COURT HAVE UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT THE BENEFIT OF CASH WITHDRA WN EARLIER FROM THE BANK HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE UNL ESS THE AO IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE CASH SO WITHDRAWN WAS S PENT ELSEWHERE. ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 6 IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THE AO HAD REOPENED THE WEALT H TAX CASES OF THE ASSESSEE OF AY 2007-08, 2008-09, 2 009-10, 2010-11 85 2011-12 U/S 17 OF W T ACT TO REASSESS TH E ESCAPED WEALTH. THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS BASED ON THE SAME BALANCE SHEETS AND THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER WEALTH TAX ACT WERE FRAMED BY THE W.T.O. AND THE COPIES OF THE WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR A Y 2007-08 TO 2011-12, ALONGWITH COPIES OF STATEMENTS OF TAXABLE WEALTH WERE SUBMITTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SA ME AO HAD ACCEPTED CASH IN HAND AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WEALTH TAX PURPOSES AND ASSESSED THE S AME AS ASSESSEES WEALTH, AND THEREFORE THE AO CANNOT HAVE TWO STANDARDS , ONE FOR INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AND THE O THER FOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE CONSIDERED. THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPT ED THE CASH IN HAND APPEARING IN HER BALANCE SHEET AT RS 131,11,293/- FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31-03-2010, WHICH HAD BEEN GENERATED FROM YEAR TO YEAR OUT OF CASH WITHDR AWAL FROM HER OWN BANK ACCOUNT IN INDUSIND BANK AND REFLECTED IN HER CASH BOOK OF FY 2005-06 TO 2009-10. THE AO HAS HOWEVER NOT LED/PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER ACCOUNT IN INDUSIND BANK IN ALL THESE YEARS FY 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, AND 2009-10 HAD BEEN SPENT/INVESTED BY HER AND WAS THEREFORE NOT AVAILAB LE WITH HER AS ON 31-03-2010. IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISI ONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT AND ITAT, AMRITSAR CITED BY THE APPELLANT (SUPRA), THE BENEFIT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER ACCOUNT IN INDUSIND BANK IN ALL THESE YEAR S THEREFORE CANNOT BE DENIED. ACCORDINGLY THE CASH IN HAND AT R S 131,11,293/- AS ON 01-04-2010 REFLECTED IN THE CASH BOOK AND THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-03-2010 IS UPHELD. THE COPIES OF THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEETS MADE BY T HE APPELLANT FROM AY 2003-04 TO 2011-12 WERE PERUSED. THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT AS ON 31-03-2010 REV EALS CASH- IN-HAND OF RS 131,11,293/-. THE CASES OF THE ASSESS EE WAS REOPENED BY THE AO FOR A Y 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-1 0, 2010-11, 2011-12 BY ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S 17 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 17 O F THE W T ACT, THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR ALL THESE YEARS AND THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLE TED U/S 16(3) /17 OF W T ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30-03-2015. T HE ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 7 ASSESSMENT OF A Y 2010- 11 WAS COMPLETED U/S 16(3)/ L OF W T ACT AT THE NET WEALTH DECLARED IN THE RETURN AT RS 51,64,100/-. THE COPY OF NET WEALTH COMPUTATION OF AY 2010-11 REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED CASH IN HAN D OF RS 1,31,11,283/- IN THE NET WEALTH DECLARED, WHICH WAS THE SAME AMOUNT APPEARING IN HER PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 -03- 2010. SINCE THE WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT OF AY 2010-11 WAS COMPLETED AT THE RETURNED WEALTH OF RS 51,64,10 0/- VIDE ORDER U/S 17(3) OF W T ACT DATED 26-03-2015 WHICH I NCLUDED THE CASH IN HAND OF RS 131,11,293/-. THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT HAD ACCEPTED THE CASH-IN-HAND OF RS 131,11,293/- APPEARING IN THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEE T OF THE APPELLANT AS ON 31-03-2010. THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS 5,00,000/-, R S 20,00,000/- AND RS 25,00,000/- ON 18-08-2010, 04-09 -2010 & 18-11-2010 RESPECTIVELY IN THE SB A/C OF ASSESSEE IN INDUSIND BANK WAS OUT OF THE CASH IN HAND AT RS 1,31,11,293/- AS ON 01- 04-2010, WHICH HAS BEEN ACC EPTED BY THE AO IN THE WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT OF THE APPEL LANT OF A Y 2010-11 U/S 17(3) OF THE W T ACT. THE AO HAS NOT LED/PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SAID CAS H IN HAND OF THE APPELLANT AS ON 01-04-2010 OF RS 1,31,1 1,293/- HAD BEEN SPENT/INVESTED BY HER DURING THE F Y 2010- 11 AND WAS THEREFORE NOT AVAILABLE WITH HER FOR DEPOSITING RS 5,00,000/-, RS 20,00,000/- AND RS 25,00,000/- ON 18 -08- 2010, 04-09-2010 & 18-11-2010 RESPECTIVELY IN HER S B A/C IN INDUSIND BANK, EVEN THOUGH AFTER GAP OF 8 MONTHS. I T WAS NOT MANDATORY UNDER ANY LAW THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS TO KEEP HIS /HER SAVINGS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ONLY AND NOT AS CA SH IN HAND AS HELD BY HONBLE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CA SE OF ITO VS MRS DEEPALI SEHGAL IN ITA NO. 5660/DEL/2012 DATE D 05- 09-2014. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONB LE HIGH COURT AND ITAT, AMRITSAR CITED BY THE APPELLAN T (SUPRA), AND THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF CAS H IN HAND AS ON 31-03-2010 BY THE DEPARTMENT IN WEALTH T AX ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS 5,00,00 0/-, RS 20,00,000/- AND RS 25,00,000/- ON 18-08-2010, 04-09 -2010 8S 18-11-2010 RESPECTIVELY IN THE S.B ACCOUNT OF TH E APPELLANT IN INDUSIND BANK, OUT OF THE OPENING CASH IN HAND A T RS 1,31,11,293/- AS ON 01-04-2010 AS PER CASH BOOK AND ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 8 BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-03- 2010 IS UPHELD AND THE A DDITION OF RS 50,00,000/- IS THEREFORE DELETED. 7. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIV ES INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AND FROM OTHER SOURCES. SHE OWNS AGRICU LTURE LAND. SHE RECEIVED ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND, AMOUNTING TO RS.62,00,000/- ON 9.12.2005 AND 16.12.2005 FROM M/S . D.D. INDUSTRIES. LATER, SHE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.70,48,112/- AND RS. 30,00,000/- ON 15.03.2008 AND 10.06.2008, RESPECTIVELY, HAVING ENT ERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WITH DVM REALTORS PVT. LTD., (BH ARGAVA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.). THIS WAS CONCERNING LAND MEASURING 177 KANA LS 6 MARLAS SITUATED IN VILLAGE MEHARBANPURA, TEHSIL AND DISTT. AMRITSAR , WITH REGARD TO A SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF POSSESSION, I.E., WITH REGARD TO A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A GREEMENT DATED 15.03.2008. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF THE CONCER NED BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THE CREDIT OF THE AFORESAI D AMOUNTS WAS FROM THESE ACCOUNTS. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAIN S PERSONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DRAWS HER PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET, THOUG H TAKEN BY THE A.O. TO BE FALSE, GETS SUBSTANTIATED BY THE FACT THAT T HE A.O. WAS FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME REGULARLY FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 95-96. SO MUCH SO, SHE HAD FILED HER PERSONAL BALANCE SHEETS FROM ASSE SSMENT YEARS 1995- 96 TO 1996-97. THEREAFTER, HOWEVER, SHE HAD STARTE D FILING HER RETURNS OF INCOME ON-LINE. THOUGH AFTER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07, NO BALANCE SHEET WAS FILED, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BALANCE S HEETS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY PREPARED AND PLACED IN THE INCOME TAX FIL E. THE FACTUM OF HER ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 9 HAVING FILED HER BALANCE SHEET UPTO 1996-97 GETS EV IDENCED FROM THE FACT THAT SHE SUBMITTED HER BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2010-11 AND COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07. HER INCOME TAX RETURNS WE RE BASED ON THE BALANCE SHEETS FILED. SHE TOOK THE STAND THAT ON 31 .03.2010, AS PER HER BALANCE SHEET, ON THAT DAY, SHE HAD AN AMOUNT OF RS .1,31,11,293/- AS CASH IN HAND; AND THAT IT WAS OUT OF THIS AMOUNT TH AT THE DEPOSIT OF RS.50,00,000/- DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, HAD BEEN MADE. THE AO, WITHOUT BRINGING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO CONTRADI CT THE CATEGORICAL STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH STAND WAS DULY S UPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AS ELABORATELY TAKEN INTO CO NSIDERATION BY THE LD. CIT(A), HELD THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING MAINTAINED HER PERSONAL CASH BOOK AND BALANCE-SHEET, TO BE A CONCO CTED STORY. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IN FACE OF NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY BROUGHT BY THE AO, AMPLY PROVED THE SOURCE OF THE D EPOSIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE REASON OF THE AO FOR NOT ACCEPTING THI S DEPOSIT WAS ALSO A FLIMSY REASON, I.E., NO PRUDENT PERSON WOULD KEEP SUCH HEAVY CASH AS CASH IN HAND FOR 17 TO 18 MONTHS. SUCH OBSERVATION OF THE AO GETS ANNULLED BY THE BALANCE SHEETS PLACED ON RECORD B Y THE ASSESSEE OVER THE YEARS, EVERY YEAR. THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,31,11,293 /- WAS REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010. THER EFORE, SHE PROVED THIS AMOUNT AS CASH IN HAND AND THE AO DID NOT BRIN G ANYTHING ON ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 10 RECORD TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,00 0/- HAD, IN FACT, COME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. 8. IT ALSO REMAINS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEES WEALTH TAX CASES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2011-12 STOOD R EOPENED. THE BASIS OF THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S THE VERY SAME BALANCE SHEETS, AS REFERRED TO ABOVE. FOR WEALTH TA X PURPOSES, IT IS REMARKABLE, IT WAS THE SAME AO, WHO HAD ACCEPTED TH E ASSESSEES CASH IN HAND, WHICH WAS ACCORDING TO HER BALANCE SHEET. THE AMOUNT WAS, IN FACT, ASSESSED AS THE ASSESSEES WEALTH. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT MAINT AIN TWO DIVERSE STANDARDS, I.E., ONE FOR WEALTH TAX PURPOSES, AND ANOTHER DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE STAND FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES. IT ALSO REQ UIRES TO BE POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,31,11,293/- WAS GENERATED B Y THE ASSESSEE FROM YEAR TO YEAR OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM HER OWN BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS STOOD REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES CASH BOOK FOR TH E F.YS. 2005-06 TO 2009-10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AO DID NOT BRING AN Y POSITIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ANY OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER ACCOUNT IN ANY OF THE YEARS CONCE RNED, HAD BEEN INVESTED BY HER OR SPENT BY HER ELSEWHERE. THAT BE ING SO, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN BASING THE ADDITION ON THE MERELY SCEP TIC OBSERVATION THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE KEPT THE CASH AMOU NT WITH HER FOR 17- 18 MONTHS. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORR ECTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF THE CASH W ITHDRAWALS. ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 11 9. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO BASED HIS FINDING ON HIS HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSEES PERSONAL BALANCE SHEETS FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2011-12. FROM THE ASSESSEES COMPUTATION OF NET WEALTH FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,31,11,293/-, WHICH WAS SHOWN AS CASH IN HAND I N THE ASSESSEES BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010, STOOD INCLUDED IN T HE ASSESSEES NET WEALTH DECLARED. THE AMOUNT WAS FOUND TO BE TALLYIN G TO THE LAST UNIT. IT WAS, ACCORDINGLY, THAT IT WAS FOUND THAT THE DEPART MENT HAD ACCEPTED THIS AMOUNT AS CASH IN HAND OF THE ASSESSEE, APPEAR ING IN HER PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010. 10. THUS, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 50 LACS , RS.20 LACS AND RS. 25 LACS, ON 18.08.2010, 04.09.2010 AND 18.11.2010, RESPECTIVELY, WAS FOUND TO BE THIS VERY CASH IN HAND AMOUNT OF RS.1,3 1,11,293/-. BEFORE US, NOTHING WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY THE DEPA RTMENT TO REBUT THIS SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT, AS RIGHTLY ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. CIT(A). 11. THE DEPARTMENT CONTENDS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE PURPOSE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM BA NK AND USAGE THEREOF, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE GRANTED HER THE BENEFIT OF SUCH CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK, A LONG PERIOD BACK. H OWEVER, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR SUCH STAND TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. THERE IS NO LAW WARRANTING ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE SUCH A DISCLOSURE. AS PER THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS. DEEPALI SEHGAL, DATED 05.09.2014, I N ITA ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 12 NO.5660/DEL/2012, AS CORRECTLY TAKEN NOTE OF AND FO LLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS NOT MANDATORY UNDER ANY LAW THAT AN I NDIVIDUAL HAS TO KEEP HIS/HER SAVINGS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ONLY AND NOT AS CASH IN HAND. IN SHIV CHARAN DASS VS. CIT, 126 ITR 263 (P&H), IN T HIS REGARD, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED.FURTHER, IT IS TRITE THAT NOBODY CAN BE ASKED TO PROVE A NEGATIVE, AS WAS SOUGHT TO BE DONE BY THE AO. 12. THE DEPARTMENT IS ALSO WRONG IN CONTENDING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FILING HER WEALTH TAX RETURNS REGU LARLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS PERS ONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DRAWS PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET. HERE, IT NEEDS TO BE REITERATED THAT IT IS THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF, WHICH HAS ACCEPTED THE BALANCE SHEETS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER PERSONA L CAPACITY AND THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2011-12, IN THE WEALTH TAX CASES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE WERE BASED ON THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEETS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS THE SAME AO WHO ACCEPTED THE CASH IN HAND, WHICH WAS AS PER THE BA LANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR WEALTH TAX PURPOSES. 13. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT TO CONTRADICT THE WELL REASONED FINDINGS OF FACT RECO RDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.61/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-2 13 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY IN THE WELL VERSED, ELABORATE AND REASONED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WH ICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/08/ 2016. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /SKR/ DATED: 08/08/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SMT. CHANDAN NIJJER 2. THE ITO WARD 4(1), ASR 3. THE CIT(A), ASR 4. THE CIT, ASR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.