DCIT, Chandigarh V. Smt. Saanya Goyal, Chandigarh

ITA 610/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9837 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.610/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 THE DCIT VS. SMT. SAANYA GOYAL CENTRAL CIRCLE I H.NO. 64 CHANDIGARH SECTOR 9-A CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ANDPG6445P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUSHIL KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 23/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/06/2016 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF PR. CIT(OSD) GURGAON DT. 27/03/2015. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE AP PEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN LAW BY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT COMPLETE DETAILS CALLED FOR WERE FURNISHED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FAILED TO EITHER MAKE NECESSARY FACTUAL ENQUIRY OR CALL FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW WHILE ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY NARRATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE CREDIT ENTRIES FOUND IN THE ASSE SSEES BANK STATEMENT. 3. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT A SEAR CH U/S 132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 17/0 9/2010. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 153 A WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT COMPLIED. REPEATED REMINDERS WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HER RET URN OF INCOME, WHICH REMAINED 2 UNCOMPLIED WITH AND THEREFORE PENALTY U/S 271 F WA S IMPOSED OR HER. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSE SSEE IN RESPONSE TO WHICH A REPLY WAS FILED ON 18/03/2013. AFTER CONSIDERING TH E REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 53,82,847/- TO THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE. 4. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD) WHERE THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT ALL THE CREDIT ENTRIES WERE D ULY EXPLAINED TO THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE COPIES OF BANK S TATEMENT ALONGWITH FLOW OF FUNDS AS REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WITH NARRAT IVE AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS / DOCUMENTS. THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD), AFTER CO NSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT ALL THE CREDIT ENTRIES WERE DUL Y EXPLAINED AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE WAS CALLED FOR. THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD) FURT HER TOOK NOTE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE AO THAT NEITHER BANK STATEMENT NOR NARRATION TO EXPLAIN THE CREDIT ENTRIES WERE SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT AND ALSO NOTED TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO VIDE LETTER DT. 16/03/2013 RECEIVED ON 18/03/2013, AND WHICH AS PER THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE AO. LD. PR. CI T(OSD) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY HOLDING AT PARA 6.1 OF HER ORDER AS FOLLO WS: 6.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AN D THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE AO OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING CREDIT ENTRIES IN FED ERAL BANK LTD. BEARING ACCOUNT NO. 13730100024303, REPRODUCED BELOW. DATE NARRATION AMOUNT 28.08.2009 493800 7,00,000 28.08.2009 378635 15,00,000 30.09.2009 13730100024303 5,458 10.10.2009 TRF 30,00,000 27.10.2009 910033 72,750/- 27.02.2010 334443 50,336 31.03.2010 13730100024303 54,303 53,82,847/- 3 HOWEVER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATIONS FOR THES E ENTRIES AS CALLED FOR IN QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 16.11.2012, THE SUM OF RS. 53,8 2,847/- ARE ADDED BACK TO THE TAXABLE INCOME U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SUMS OF RS. 7 LAKHS AND RS. 15 LAKHS WERE RECEIVED FROM HER PARENTS RESPECT IVELY AND IN SUPPORT FILED CONFIRMATIONS, ITRS AND COPIES OF THEIR BANK STATEM ENTS WITH SBI RESPECTIVELY [PAGES 42 TO 45 AND 46 TO 49 OF PB]. NO ADVERSE INF ERENCE IS CALLED FOR AS THE SUMS WERE FROM HER PARENTS ACCOUNTS. THE SUMS OF RS. 5,4 58/- AND RS. 54,303/- ARE STATED TO BE BANK INTEREST FROM PNB AND FEDERAL BAN K {PAGE 41 OF PB]. THE AMOUNTS OF RS. 30 LAKHS HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM H ER HSBC A/C ON 27.10.2009 WHILE RS. 50,336/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSURE OF HER HSBC A/C. COPY OF HER BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FILED AND PLACED AT PB PAGES 53A,B AND C. THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED ON PAGE 41. THE REMAINI NG SUM OF RS. 72,750/- IS DIVIDEND FROM SPL (SURYA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.) AND IN SUPPORT HAS FILED LETTER OF THE MD STATING THE DIVIDEND FROM SPL (SURYA PHARMAC EUTICALS LTD.) AND IN SUPPORT HAS FILED LETTER OF THE MD STATING THE DIVIDEND PAY MENT VIDE PAY ORDER NO. 910033 DATED 23.10.2009 [PB PAGES 54 AND 55] I AM AFRAID NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE CALLED FOR AS THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNSATISFACTORY. THE DOCUMENTS FILED ARE INTER-ALIA BANK STATEMENTS {HERS AND HER PARENTS} AND DIVIDEND FROM SURYA PHARMA WHICH IS A COMPANY WHEREIN HER PARENTS ARE DIRECTORS. IT IS TH E CASE OF THE AO THAT NEITHER BANK STATEMENTS NOR NARRATIONS TO EXPLAIN THE CREDI T ENTRIES WERE SUBMITTED WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT T HESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. TO SUBST ANTIATE HER STAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED A COPY OF LETTER DATED 16/03/20 13 (PLACED ON PB PAGE 35), FROM WHICH IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED ON 18/03/2013 AS PER THE RECEIPT STAMP, AND SO SHE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THESE WERE HOWE VER NOT CONSIDERED WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED ONLY RS. 5,598/- AS INTEREST WHILE THE BANK INTEREST ITS ELF COMES TO RS. 59,761/-. HENCE, THE SHORT DECLARATION OF RS. 54,163/- REQUIRES TO B E ADDED AS HER UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT SINCE NO DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO, THE PR. CIT(OSD) HAD ERR ED IN CONSIDERING THEM DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT CONFRONTING THEM TO THE AO AND CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT ON THE SAME. 7. LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE EVIDENCES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD) WERE ALL ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMIT TED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES PROVIDED IN RULE 46A OF THE INCOME T AX RULES, 1962. LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD) HAD NO DISCRETION IN THIS REGARD. LD. DR THEREFORE PLEADED THAT ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD) BE SET A SIDE FOR THE ABOVE REASONS. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS IN SUPPO RT OF HIS CONTENTION: 1. ACIT VS. MOHAN SINGH 16 TAXMANN.COM 37(JODHPUR) 4 2. CIT VS. MANISH BUILD WELL(P) LTD. 16 TAXMANN.COM 27 (DEL) 8. NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS ALSO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. 10. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D R THAT EVIDENCES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD), WERE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCES NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. WE FIND THAT THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD) HAS GIVEN A FACTU AL FINDING, AFTER VERIFICATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ALL DETAILS AND EVI DENCES VIDE HER LETTER DT. 18/03/2013. THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD), HAD CONFIRMED REC EIPT OF THIS LETTER BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY VERIFYING THAT IT CARRIED THE STAMP OF THE DEPARTMENT DT. 18/03/2013. RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD)AT PARA 6.1 OF THE ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: IT IS THE CASE OF THE AO THAT NEITHER BANK STATEMEN TS NOR NARRATIONS TO EXPLAIN THE CREDIT ENTRIES WERE SUBMITTED WHILE ON THE OTHER HA ND THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED AT THE TI ME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. TO SUBSTANTIATE HER STAND, THE ASSESSE E HAS PLACED A COPY OF LETTER DATED 16/03/2013 (PLACED ON PB PAGE 35), FROM WHICH IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED ON 18/03/2013 AS PER THE RECEIPT STAMP , AND SO SHE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THESE WERE HOWEVER NOT CONSIDERED WHILE PASSIN G THE IMPUGNED ORDER. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED ONLY RS. 5,598/- AS INTEREST WHILE THE BANK INTEREST ITSELF COMES TO RS. 59,761/-. HENCE, THE SHORT DECLARATION OF RS. 54,163/- REQUIRES TO BE ADDED AS HER UNDISCLOSED IN TEREST INCOME. MOREOVER WE FIND THAT EVEN THE AO HAS AFFIRMED THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONGWITH WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED FILING ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES. THUS WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THAT THE EVIDENCES WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THAT THE PR. CIT(OSD) HAD FAILED TO VERIFY THIS FACTUAL MATRIX. THE REST OF THE ARGUMEN TS OF THE LD. DR ON THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS PER RULE 46A, WE FIND, ARE OF NO CONSEQUENCE, SINCE THE EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN HELD BY US TO BE NOT IN THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 5 11. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 12. IN GROUND NO. 2 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE ON MERITS. 13. BRIEFLY STATED, THE AO HAD FOUND THE FOLLOWING CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, I.E., FEDERAL BANK LTD. AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME: DATE NARRATION AMOUNT 28.08.2009 493800 7,00,000 28.08.2009 378635 15,00,000 30.09.2009 13730100024303 5,458 10.10.2009 TRF 30,00,000 27.10.2009 910033 72,750/- 27.02.2010 334443 50,336 31.03.2010 13730100024303 54,303 53,82,847/- 14. BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD) THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS AND EVIDENCES EXPLAINING THE IMPUGNED ENTRIES WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD). 15. BEFORE US LD. DR REITERATED THE CONTENTION RAIS ED IN GROUND NO. 1 AND STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN ALLOWING RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NARRATION GIVEN TO THE AO EXPLAINING THE CREDIT ENTRIES. THE CASE OF THE LD. DR WAS THAT NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN TO THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT BEFO RE HER WITHOUT REMANDING THEM TO THE AO FOR HIS OPINION. 16. WE FIND THAT THIS GROUND ARISES FROM G.NO. 1 RA ISED BY THE REVENUE AND SINCE WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME WE HAVE HELD THAT TH E EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND NOT FOR THE FIRST TIME B EFORE THE CIT(A)AS IS THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAD NOT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HER WHILE ADJUDICATING THE I SSUE WITHOUT FIRST REMANDING THEM TO THE AO SINCE THE SAME WERE NOT IN THE NATUR E OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 6 EVEN ON MERIT WE FIND THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLE D FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD) SINCE OUT OF THE UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIE S OF RS.53,82,847/-EXCEPT FOR ENTRIES OF RS. 7,00,000/- AND RS. 15,00,000/- THE R EST WERE RELATING EITHER TO BANK INTEREST OR TRANSFER ENTRY FROM ASSESSEES OTHER BAN K ACCOUNT IN HSBC OR DIVIDEND RECEIVED. THE ENTRIES OF RS. 7,00,000/- AND RS. 15, 00,000/- WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE PARENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHOS E CONFIRMATIONS , COPIES OF ITRS AND BANK STATEMENTS WERE FILED SUBSTANTIATING THE EXPLANATION. THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD) FINDINGS REGARDING THE IMPUGNED ENTRIES WE RE MADE AT PARA 6.1 OF HER ORDER REPRODUCED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE FIN D NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT(OSD) EVEN ON MERIT. 17. GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 18. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :29/06/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR