ITO, Ward 8(2), Pune V. Smt. Nikita Dhanwani (Usha Dharamdas Gangwani), Pune

ITA 666/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 66624514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S B WALIMBE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.666/PUN/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) ITO, (CIB-2), PUNE APPELLANT VS. SMT. NIKITA DHANWANI (USHA DHARAMDAS GANGWANI) B-1/3, PIMPRI COLONY, PIMPRI, PUNE PAN: AONPG2136C RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.B. WALIMBE RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 25-11-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-11-2013 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE BY CHALLENGING THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), CENTRAL, PUNE DATED 18-12-2012 FOR T HE A.Y. 2005-06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,99,350/- BEING UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN SAVING S BANK ACCOUNT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE T HE ONUS CAST UPON HER TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF A SUM OF MONEY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE A.O. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,99,350/-, WHEN AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,99,350/- & RS.1,85,000/- STILL REMAINS UNEXPLAINED FOR WHICH N O FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ONUS O F PROVING THE SOURCE OF SUM OF MONEY HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN ANY MANNER. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER , WHEREBY THE ASSESSEES INCOME AT RS.10,99,350/-. 3. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY, WHEREIN CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. T HE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US, INTER ALIA STATING THAT CIT(A) W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.10,99,350/- BEING UNEXPLAIN ED DEPOSIT IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HER TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF A SUM OF MONEY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. NOBODY HA D ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. APPEAL IS HEARD ON THE BASIS O F ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ON MATERIAL RECORD. 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ON MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND T HAT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSIT FOUND IN ASSESSEES BANK ACC OUNT. ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS THAT SHE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEME NT FOR SALE OF SHOP SITUATED IN PIMPRI COLONY, MAIN BAZAAR, PIMPRI , PUNE FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.25 LAKHS TO ONE SHRI NEELESH C. PAHELWANI ON 12-11-2004. THE SHOP BELONGED TO ASSESSEES FATHER AND SHE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF HIS DECEASED FATHER SHRI DHARAMDAS L. GANGWANI. IN PURSUANCE OF AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.7 LAKHS IN CASH ON 12-11-2004 WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY HER IN HER SAVINGS ACCOUNT NO.32184 WI TH STATE BANK OF INDIA IN VARIOUS INSTALLMENTS. REMAINING TRANSACTI ONS WERE STATED TO BE MERELY ROTATION OF SAME MONEY BY MEANS OF WITHDR AWALS AND DEPOSITS. IN THIS BACKGROUND, IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE RELEVANT FINANC IAL YEAR MAINLY PERTAINS TO THE SAID TRANSACTIONS FOR SALE OF SHOP. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ABOVE SAID SHRI NEELESH C. PAHELWANI HAD SOLD HIS PROPERTY IN RAJKOT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.10.51 LAKHS AND THE MONEY SO RECEIVED BY HIM WAS THE SOURCE OF ADVANCE PAYMENT MADE TO ASSESSEE TOWARDS TRANSACTION FOR PURCHASE OF SHO P. CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, CIT(A) FOUND THA T THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT REASON FOR NEGATING STAND PUT FORWARD ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABIL ITY. MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF QUANTUM OF REVENUE INVOLVED AND OTHER FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING ASS ESSEES CLAIM, WHICH NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHO LD THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT(A), (CENTRAL) PUNE 4) THE CIT, (CENTRAL) PUNE 5) THE DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE 6) GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT PUNE BENCHES, PUNE