SMT MUNNI DEVI W/O LATE SH. SURAJ MAL SAINI, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 684/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99414 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES SMC, JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 684/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 MUNNI DEVI, L/H OF SHRI SURAJ MAL SAINI, 38-39, SAINI BHAWAN, TARON KE KOONT, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AETPS 1771 D VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : NONE (ADJ. APPLICATION REJECTED) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 04/11/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/11/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/07/2014 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR FOR A. Y. 2008-09. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, I, THER EFORE, DECIDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD DR. ITA 684/JP/2014_ MUNNI DEVI VS ITO 2 3. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR AND GOING THROUGH T HE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, I NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE ONLY IS SUE INVOLVED RELATE TO ADDITION OF RS. 10,55,050/- U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE LD A SSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNT TO RS. 10,55,050/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES. DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND SUBMI TTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE LD CIT(A) UNDER RU LE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES). FROM TH ESE EVIDENCES, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SO LD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,76,500/- DURING THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE PHOTO COPY OF THE SALE DEED WERE SUBMITTED. THE SA ID LAND WAS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO BROTHERS AND REST O F THE AMOUNT AT RS. 78,550/- WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF THE HOUSE HOLD SAVINGS . THE SAID SALE PROCEEDS DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. 5. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT EVE N THOUGH ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL L AND BUT DID NOT ACCEPT THAT SUM OF RS. 9,76,500/- HAS BEEN DEPOSITED OUT O F THE SALE OF ITA 684/JP/2014_ MUNNI DEVI VS ITO 3 AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LD CIT(A), I NOTED, EVEN THOUG H REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN R ESPECT OF OTHER BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REMAND R EPORT AS PRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE TAKEN BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), I NOTED THAT THE BROTHERS OF THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT DENY THAT THEY HAVE NOT HANDED OVER THE AMOUNT OUT OF THE SAL E PROCEEDS TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN IT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE A GRICULTURAL LAND HAS BEEN UTILIZED SOMEWHERE ELSE. THUS, IN MY OPINION, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE LAND DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR, THE SOU RCE OF RS. 9,76,500/- HAS BEEN DULY EXPLAINED AND THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE DEPOSITED THE CASH OUT OF THE SAID SALE PROCEEDS. I ALSO NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08 A ND IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AT RS. 1,80,724/-, 2,01,213/- AND R S. 2,08,492/-, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE DURING THE IMPUGN ED YEAR HAVE SAVED THE MONEY, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN LYING WITH THE ASSES SEE AS CASH IN HAND. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 78,550/- WOULD HAVE B EEN DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE PAST SAVINGS AND ACCUMU LATION THEREOF. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE SO FAR IT RELATES TO PAST SAVINGS AND ITA 684/JP/2014_ MUNNI DEVI VS ITO 4 ACCUMULATION, IN MY OPINION, IS PLAUSIBLE ONE. I, A CCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS . 10,55,050/-. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/11/2015. SD/- IH-DS-CALY (P.K. BANSAL) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 05 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. MUNNI DEVI, L/H OF SHRI SURAJ MAL SAINI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 684/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR