ITO, New Delhi V. Sh Rama Shankar Gupta, Delhi

ITA 614/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65941 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Peak credit
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.614/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SHRI RAMA SHANKAR GUPTA, WARD-29(4), NEW DELHI. VS. 1238/8A, GALI KACHA BAG H, CHANDANI CHOWK, DELHI-110006. PAN : AEKPG9393J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMA R, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : NONE. DATE OF HEARING : 12-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-12-2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 14-11-2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NE W DELHI. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IS THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .17,98,740/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACC OUNT AND CONSEQUENT ADDITION UNDER SEC.68 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.614/DEL/2012 2 2. DURING HEARING WE HAVE HEARD SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, LEARNED SR. DR AND NO BODY REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND HAD BEEN ADJOURNED ON VARIOUS DATES AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX PART E QUA ASSESSEE AND TEND TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IDENT ICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY SUPPORTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICE UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). IT WAS CONTENDED T HAT IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY THE AO PASSED ORDER UNDER SEC. 144 OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE AS SERTION MADE BY THE LEARNED SR. DR. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1,23,910/- IN ITS RETURN FILED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008 WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE ACT AT THE RETURNED INCOME . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE THE NECESSAR Y DETAILS COULD NOT BE FILED AND ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSE D UNDER SEC. 144 OF THE ACT MAKING THE ADDITION UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFI RMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAKHS AND THUS PARTLY ALLOWED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT ITA NO.614/DEL/2012 3 THE SCRUTINY WAS DONE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.20,00,800/- IN ABN AMBRO BANK A CCOUNT AND ANOTHER CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,97,940/- IN THE STANDARD CHART ERED BANK. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSIT WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE SALES. THERE IS A FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES WORTH RS.24, 16,388/- AND THE TURNOVER WAS RS.25,76,800/- WHICH RESULTED INTO GRO SS PROFIT OF RS.3,32,664/- AND NET PROFIT OF RS.1,72,664/-. T HE PEAK CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3 LAKHS ON 14 TH APRIL, 2006 AND ANOTHER CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.4,50,00 0/- ON 15-04-2006 WAS TAKEN FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE. CONSIDERING THE PEAK CREDIT THEORY AND LOW PERSONAL DRAWINGS, THE A DDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS CONFIRMED. NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE CONTRADICTING THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WI TH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN. IT IS AFFIRMED. 4. FINALLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF THE LEARNED SR. DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 12 TH DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12 TH DECEMBER, 2012. ITA NO.614/DEL/2012 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.