ITO, Fatehabad V. Sh. Mahender Singh, Fatehabad

ITA 6339/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 633920114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI J.S. REDDY ITA NO. 6339/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. MAHENDER SINGH S/O WARD-2, SH. BIRBAL SINGH, C/O. FATEHABAD. M/S. BHAMBU CONTRACTOR, 89-B, ANAJ MANDI, FATEHABAD. (PAN: BLDPS3179K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI P.DAM KA NUNJNA, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY: N O N E DATE OF HEARING : 16.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17:06.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER O N SEVERAL GROUNDS INVOLVING THE SOLE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,72,252 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY T HE LEARNED SR. DR IN VIEW OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A CONTRA CTOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INQUIRED ABOUT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAV ING BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BRANCH, FATEHABAD. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT BESIDES BEING A CONTRACTOR, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AN AGRICULTURALIST . IT WAS STATED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE SAID BANK WERE MADE OUT OF CASH WIT HDRAWAL OF RS.9,25,000 MADE FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL ACCOUNT WITH M/S. BIRBAL SINGH & SONS, ANAJ MANDI, FATEHABAD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSIT S WERE ALSO MADE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF EARNEST MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.20 LACS (RS.10 LACS RECEIVED ON 21.5.2008 AND RS.10 LACS RECEIVED ON 10 .1.2009) RECEIVED FROM SMT. SURJIT KAUR AND SMT. GURDEEP KAUR, IN PURSUANC E OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.13,92,252 (RS.21,9 7,252 RS.8,25,000) BY TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE QUESTIONED THE ABOVE ADDITION BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETED T HE ADDITION. 4. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS, THE LEARNED SR. DR HA S BASICALLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION BASICALLY O N THE BASIS THAT AS PER THE 3 AGREEMENT TO SELL, THE SALE DEED WAS TO BE EXECUTED BY 15.5.2009 BUT THE SAME WAS NOT EXECUTED TILL DATE AND THAT THE ASSESS EE DESPITE OPPORTUNITY FAILED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SO CALLED PURCHASER OF LAND I.E. SMT. SURJIT KAUR AND SMT. GURDEEP KAUR. AGAIN BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF THE AMOUNT ON WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CALLED FOR REMAND RE PORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSIDERING THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS COME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE AR AS WELL AS THE COMMENTS OF THE A.O. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD WITHDRAWN RS.5,45,000 FROM HIS SA VING BANK ACCOUNT WITH OBC, FATEHABAD. COPY OF OBC SAVING BAN K ACCOUNT IS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE ON THE FILE OF THE A.O. AND A C ERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAME WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AR DURING THE COURSE OF A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS ADMITTED REGARDING DIFFERENCE OF RS.1.00 LACS REGARDING WITH DRAWALS MADE FROM M/S. BIRBAL SINGH & SONS, FATEHABAD. THE A.O. HAS A LSO POINTED OUT THAT REVERSE ENTRIES OF RS.116604 (216604-100000) M AY ALSO BE CONSIDERED ON MERITS. SO FAR AS THE ADVANCES RECEIV ED AGAINST SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CONCERNED, THE SAME ARE GENJUINE AS THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPY OF AGREEMENT AND SALE DEED OF THE AG RICULTURAL LAND OF THE BUYER IN SUPPORT THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS/ADV ANCES MADE BY THEM. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED THE AFF IDAVITS OF THE BUYERS IN SUPPORT OF THE ADVANCES MADE BY THEM. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT 4 CANNOT BE REJECTED ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPE LLANT COULD NOT PERSONALLY PRODUCE THE PURCHASER OF LAND AS THE PUR CHASERS OF LAND HAD RECEIVED THE SUMMONS BUT DID NOT APPEAR, THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR ALL THIS AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UM SHAH, PROP. SHRENIK TRADING CO. LTD. (1973) 90 ITR 396 (BOM.) AND BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHOK ARORA (2009) 29(1) ITCL 4 0: (P&H H.C) (2009) 24 DTR (P&H) 227 AND BY THE HONBLE ITAT DEL HI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURINDER NATH SINGLA (1995) 51 TTJ (DEL.TRIB) 179. IT IS EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL ENTRY, ON WHICH THE MI ND HAS TO BE APPLIED BY THE A.O., WHEN AN EXPLANATION IS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED IN RESPECT OF A PAR TICULAR ENTRY THEN THE A.O. WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT IS UNEXPLAINED. IT IS NOT THE TOTALITY O F THE CREDIT ENTRIES WHICH ARE TO BE ALLOWED OR TO BE DISALLOWED AS MADE IN THE ABOVE CASE. THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF PR OOF BY PRODUCING THE AFFIDAVITS AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, I FIND NO PLAUSIBLE REASON TO DISPUTE TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH DEPOSIT IN THE HDFC BANK STAND E XPLAINED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.137222 52 IS DELETED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL BEFORE COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION. THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE IS COMPREHENSIVE AND REASONED ONE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO 5 SUCCESSFULLY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT IN QU ESTION. WE THUS DO NOT FIND REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE O RDER IN THIS REGARD. THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS INVOLVING THE ISSUE ARE THUS REJECTED. 7. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 .06.20 15 SD/- SD/- ( J.S. REDDY ) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17/06/2015 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON COMPUTER 17.06.2015 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 17.06.2015 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 17.06.2015 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 18.06.2015 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 17.06.2015 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 18.06.2015 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.