Sh. Nirmal Taneja, New Delhi V. ITO, Kotdwar

ITA 6155/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91223 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DUM KANUNJNA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRMAL TANEJA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6155/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 NIRMAL TANEJA VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, D-19A, JAWAHAR PARK, KOTDWAR. KHANPUR, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAYPT 8329 D ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIRMAL TANEJA (ASSESS EE) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. DUM KANUNJNA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 12-06-2015 DATE OF ORDER : 17-06-2015. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:- THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 20-09- 2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II, NEW DELHI IN APPE AL NO. 327/CIT(A)- I/2011-12RELATING TO A.Y. 2009-10. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,47,800/- . IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH BOOKS OF A/C, DATE-WISE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITED IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AND CASH FLOW CHART 2 ITA 6155/DEL/2013 NIRMAL TANEJA VS. ITO INDICATING THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND SOURCE TH EREOF ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH DETAILS. HOWEVER, A WRITTEN REPLY WAS FILED ON 20-12-2011, WHICH IS REP RODUCED HEREUNDER: AS YOU SAY THAT THE AMOUNT EXCEEDS MY CASH IN HAND LIMIT WHICH IS AROUND RS. 12 LACS AND THE ABOVE CASH DEPO SIT. I HAVE DEPOSITED AND WITHDRAW AS WELL THE SAME AMOUNT. AS I TOLD YOU IN MY PREVIOUS LETTER AS WELL REGARDI NG THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 14,73,200/-, THIS DEPOSIT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE IN SINGLE TRANSACTION, I HAVE MADE SEVERAL TRANSACTION S OF CASH DEPOSIT DURING THE YEAR. I HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED ALL MY ORIGINAL BANK STATE MENTS AS PER MR. GHAKKAR INSTRUCTION AND UNFORTUNATELY I DONT H AVE THE COPIES OF THE SAME. YOU CAN CHECK MY STATEMENT. I THINK YOU WILL BE SAT ISFIED AFTER CHECKING THOSE. 2.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY AS ASSE SSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETAILS, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 14,26 ,000/-. 2.2. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED FUNDS EMANATED FROM ACCUMULATION IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT (RS. 21,82,700/-) OVER PAST SEVERAL YEARS. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL, INTER ALIA, OBSERVING THAT THE COPIES OF BANK ACCOU NTS FILED SHOWED FREQUENT TRANSACTIONS WHICH DID NOT APPEAR CORRELATED WITH T HE RATHER MODEST INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE ENTIRE CAPITAL IS ACCUMULATED AND KEPT REA DY AS CASH FOR DEPOSIT IN THIS YEAR WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ATTRITION ON ACCO UNT OF MEETING PERSONAL 3 ITA 6155/DEL/2013 NIRMAL TANEJA VS. ITO EXPENDITURE OR ANY OTHER EXPENDITURE. HE FURTHER OB SERVED THAT THE CASH IS SEEN TO BE DEPOSITED IN DELHI, SILIGURI, DEHRADUN A ND EVEN MUMBAI AND, THEREFORE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE CASH IN HAND WAS BEING DEPOSITED AT CONVENIENT PLACES ALL OVER INDIA AND AT DIFFEREN T TIMES. 2.3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE, R AISING FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I) THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A)-2, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF LD. AO, TREATING UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF RS. 14,26,000/- DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION, FILED DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS: II) THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(APPEALS-2) PASSED THE ORDER ON PRESUM PTION BASIS WITHOUT GRANTING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING TO THE ASSESSEE, IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE ASSESSEE PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE US AND S UBMITTED THAT AO PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT CAPITAL ACCOU NTS WERE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR EARLIER YEARS AND, THEREFO RE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH TO D EPOSIT IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FILED BEFORE US CASH FLOW CHART MENTIONING THEREIN THE DETAILS OF WITHDRAWALS AND DATES OF DEP OSITS. 4 ITA 6155/DEL/2013 NIRMAL TANEJA VS. ITO 4. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON 22-1 2-2011 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY DATED 20-12-2011. THEREFORE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT AO PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER O PPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESSEE, AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17-06-2015. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17-06-2015. MP: C OPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 5 ITA 6155/DEL/2013 NIRMAL TANEJA VS. ITO