Sh. Vivek Jolly, Ambala City V. DCIT, Ambala

ITA 672/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64050 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI SHANKAR; B M MONGA
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 672/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SH.VIVEK JOLLY, VS. THE D.C.I.T., C/O INCO, MODEL TOWN, AMBALA CANTT. AMBALA CITY. PAN: AAKPJ5787H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI RAVI SHANKAR & B.M.MONGA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.11.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DAT ED 2.4.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.15 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH WITHDRAWAL S FROM ITS SAVING ACCOUNT WITH ABN AMRO BANK ON VARIOUS DATES TOTALIN G RS.23 LACS AND OUT OF THE SAID CASH WITHDRAWALS AFTER A GAP OF FE W MONTHS RS.15 LACS WERE DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. T HE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IS OUT OF CASH WITHDRAW ALS FROM THE SAID BANK BOTH BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (APPE ALS). THE PLEA OF 2 THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND ADDITION OF RS.15 LACS WAS MADE AS THERE WAS NO REASON FOR KEEP ING SUCH HUGE CASH AT HOME. THE CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDINGS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. S/RAVI SHANKAR B.M.MONGA APPEARED FOR THE ASSESS EE AND SHRI AKHILESH PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E AND PUT FORWARD THEIR CONTENTIONS. 5. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE WITH REFERENCE TO THE TABULATED DETAILS OF CAS H AS REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS). RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT-II V S. PARNEETA GOYAL, 278 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION 7.2.2011 AND ALSO TH E DECISION OF CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.39 & 40 /CHD/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE CASE OF SURESH KU MAR SINGAL VS. ACIT ORDER DATED 30.3.2011. 6. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CAS H WITHDRAWALS OF RS.23 LACS ON VARIOUS DATES OUT OF ITS SAVING ACCOU NT WITH ABN AMRO BANK AS UNDER: 24.4.2007 RS.8 LACS 25.4.2007 RS.9 LACS 7.7.2007 RS.5 LACS 7.7.2007 RS.1 LAC ------------ TOTAL: RS.23 LACS. ------------- 3 8. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER DEPOSITED CASH IN ITS BA NK ACCOUNT AS UNDER: 13.9.2007 RS.5 LACS 14.9.2007 RS.5 LACS 18.9.2007 RS.5 LACS 9. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE WITHDRAWN CASH FROM ITS BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTILIZING THE SAME IN THE INVEST MENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND AS THE TRANSACTION DID NOT GO THROUGH, PART OF THE CASH WITHDRAWN WAS REDEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND B ALANCE WAS UTILIZED FOR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HA D WITHDRAWN CASH FROM ITS BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IN TURN WAS REDEPOSITED IN THE BANK AFTER A GAP OF FEW MONTHS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN TREATING THE SAID REDEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 10. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT- II VS. PARNEETA GOYAL (SUPRA) ON SIMILAR FACTS WHERE CASH WAS WITHD RAWN ON EARLIER DATES AND WAS REDEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE ADDITION IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE GAP OF ENTRIES BETWEEN CASH WITHDRAW ALS AND DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEING OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOLLO WING THE ABOVE SAID AND IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FI ND NO MERIT IN THE AFORESAID ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE SAME AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4