Sh. Ravinder Singh, Kurali V. ITO, Mohali

ITA 626/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0688 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K JINDAL
• Keywords: Gift; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 626/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SH.RAVINDER SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURU FATEH WOOD, WORKS WARD 6(1), 272 SINGH PURA ROAD, MOHALI. KURALI. PAN: BCEPS3578N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.K.JINDAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE CIT (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DATED 13.03.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SE VERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS AS UND ER: 1. A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHO LDING AN ADDITION OF RS.14,18,500/- UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1,4 2,700/- UNDER SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT. THE INFORMATION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT 2 OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER AIR WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.14,18,500/- WERE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE ASSESSEE D ID APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURNISHED COPY OF BANK ACCOUN T WITH HDFC BANK, KHARAR IN WHICH TOTAL DEPOSITS DURING THE YEAR WERE RS.4,99,500/-. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD ANOTHER SAVING ACCOUNT WIT H STATE BANK OF PATIALA IN WHICH THERE WAS A CREDIT OF RS.2,50,000/ - VIDE CHEQUE ON 18.2.2008. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED TO FURNISH SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT CERTAIN GIFTS REC EIVED WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND ADDITION OF RS.14,18,500/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 4. THE CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 5. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INCOMPLETE AN D NAME OF THE BANK WAS NEVER INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHE R POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER MAINTAINING A BANK ACCOUNT WITH CENTURION BANK WHICH LATER MERGED WITH HDFC BANK AND SAID DEPOSITS WERE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CENTURION BANK, WHICH WAS NOT REFERRED AT THE EARLIER STAGE OF ASSE SSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FIL ED ON RECORD AN APPLICATION FOR ADMITTING THE SAID EVIDENCE I.E. TH E AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT AND FURTHER THE RELEVANT EXPLANATION ALONGW ITH EVIDENCE OF SOURCES OF CREDITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. 3 6. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES AND HENCE THE ADDITION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AS CERTAIN INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE T HROUGH AIR. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REFLEC TS THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED WAS INCOMPLETE I.E. THE NAME O F THE BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS WAS MADE WAS NOT CONFR ONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS AND EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS WHIC H RESULTED IN THE AFORESAID ADDITION BEING MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE NATURE OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH CENTURION BANK IN WHICH THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS IN CASH HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE CASH DE POSITS MADE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ABOVE SAID EVIDENC E WAS NOT AVAILABLE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE C IT (APPEALS). IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AT HAND, WE ADMIT THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEING FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RELEVANT INFORMATION AND EVIDEN CES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ISSUE SHALL BE ADJUDICATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH