ITO, Sonepat V. Sh. Surender Kumar, Haryana

ITA 663/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 66320114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVEEN KUMAR GOYAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 663/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 -10) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SONEPAT VS SHRI SURENDER KUMAR, S/O SHRI BHAGWAN, VPO, ROHAD, DISTT. JHAJJAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AQPPK3280M ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR GOYAL REVENUE BY: SHRI S. N. BHATIA DATE OF HEARING 24.2.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.2.2014 ORDER PER R. S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 16.11.2012 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. ALL THE GROUNDS ARE AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDI TION OF RS. 11,01,400/- MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACT OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SMALL TIME COMMISSION AGENT, ARRANGING SUPPLIES OF BUILDI NG MATERIAL, FOR HIS SELLER CLIENTS, COLLECTING CASH ON THEIR BEHALF AND IN LIEU OF THAT GETTING ITA NO. 663/DEL/2013 SURENDER KUMAR 2 COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED COMMISSION OF RS. 4,14,810/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AFTER DEBI TING CERTAIN EXPENSES, SHOWED NET INCOME OF RS. 3,39,632/-. AS PER AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN ICICI BANK, BAHADURGARH, AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,56,000/- ON DIFFER ENT DATES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE SOLD BUILD ING MATERIAL ON THE BEHALF OF HIS CUSTOMERS AND THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESE NTED THE REALIZATIONS MADE FROM CUSTOMERS AND THEN HANDED OV ER THE SELLERS. IT WAS STATED THAT HE SOLD BUILDING MATERIAL BELONGING TO SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH FOR A SUM OF RS. 11,01,400/- AND THE SAME A MOUNT WAS INITIALLY DEPOSITED IN BANK AND THEN GIVEN TO SHRI SUKHBIR SI NGH THROUGH CHEQUE/CASH. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE FILE D A COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH AND ALSO A COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH HIM. HE ALSO FILED SOME AFFIDAVITS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM BUILDIN G MATERIAL WAS SUPPLIED THROUGH HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVE D THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE ON 1.9.2008 AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THEM IN JULY AN D AUGUST 2008. PAYMENT OF RS. 6,29,000/- MADE TO SHRI SUKHBIR SING H THROUGH CHEQUE ON 8.9.2008 WAS AFTER A GAP OF AROUND 1 MONTHS. HE , THEREFORE, REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND MAD E ADDITION FOR RS. 11.01 LACS. THE LD. CIT(A) ORDERED FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION. ITA NO. 663/DEL/2013 SURENDER KUMAR 3 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUS ING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSE E GAVE COMPLETE DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT HIS SELLING BUILDING MATERIAL ON BEHALF OF SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH AND CERTAIN PARTIES TO WHOM SUCH BUILDING WAS SOLD IN THE MONTHS OF JULY AND AUGUST 2008 AND THE AMOUN T WAS REALIZED IN CASH. IT WAS, FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAID SALES ON BEHALF OF SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH WERE PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH HIM FOR TH E SALE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL OF THE LATTER. THESE FACTS HAVE N OT BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ONLY REASON IN MAKING ADDITI ON IS THAT THE AMOUNT REALIZED IN CASH AROUND 1 MONTHS BEFORE ISS UING CHEQUE TO SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH PROVED NON-GENUINENESS OF THE CR EDIT. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE VIEW POINT OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS OF RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THAT OF MAKING PAYMENT TO SH. SUKHBIR SINGH, W E FAIL TO APPRECIATE AS TO HOW ANY ADDITION COULD BE MADE SIMPLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR A MONTH OR SO . THERE MAY BE SEVERAL REASONS FOR NOT IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRING TH E MONEY TO SH. SUKHBIR SINGH. FURTHER WHEN SH. SUKHBIR SINGH DID N OT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE RECEIPT OF AMOUNT AFTER A GAP OF A ROUND MONTH, WE ARE AT LOSS TO APPRECIATE AS TO HOW THE AO COULD DO SO. SINCE THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WAS PAID T O SH. SUKHBIR SINGH, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIF IED IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. ITA NO. 663/DEL/2013 SURENDER KUMAR 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/02/2014. SD/- SD/- (A. D. JAIN) (R. S. S YAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26/02/2014 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(APPEALS) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 24.02.2014 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 25.02.2014 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *