Ms. Timple Jain, Patiala V. ITO, Patiala

ITA 70/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81034 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 80C; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 70/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 MS.TIMPLE JAIN VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/O STUDY CENTRE WARD 1, NEAR MODI COLLEGE CHOWK, PATIALA. PATIALA. PAN: ADCPJ8820A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.11.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.11.2014 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), PATIALA DATED 18.9.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.31,36,366 /- MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE IN A SUMMARY MANNER WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIF IED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,80,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRAR Y AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.37,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT ALLEGED NON PAYMENT OF LIP PREMIUM AND TUITION FEE WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS FAILED TO ADJUDICATE GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 SUPRA MENTIONED SUPRA WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.31,36,366/-/- UNDER SEC TION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE FILED PART UNCOMPLETED DETAILS WITHOUT SUP PORTING FACTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE W ERE HUGE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN FACT, THE CASE WAS SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK , PATIALA AND TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AMOU NTS TO RS.31,36,366/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS TO EXPLAIN THE S OURCE OF THE DEPOSIT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S RUNNING A STUDY CENTRE ENGAGED IN OBTAINING STUDENTS VISA AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE. HOWEVER, NO SUPPORTING DOCUM ENTS I.E. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS, ETC. HAVE BEEN PRODUCED . THE ENTIRE AMOUNT, THEREFORE WAS TREATED AS UN-EXPLAINE D INVESTMENT FROM UN-DISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESSER HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS MADE TOWARDS LO W HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AMOUNTING T O RS.37,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ILP AND TUITION FEES. H OWEVER, NO 3 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE FILED AND THE SAME WERE DISALLOWED. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED ALL THE ADDITIONS BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE STUDENTS US ED TO COME FROM REMOTE AREAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDENTS VISA AND THEY DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY BANK ACCOUNT IN PATIALA SO THA T THEY CAN REMIT THEIR FEES TO THE UNIVERSITIES THROUGH BANK. TO PROVIDE THEM FACILITY, THE ASSESSEE USED TO TAKE ADVANCE FR OM THE STUDENTS FOR FURTHER REMITTANCE TO THE CONCERNED UN IVERSITIES ON BEHALF OF THE STUDENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADMISSION F EES, ETC. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOW S THAT THE REMITTANCE AND CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE ON THE SAME DAY AS AND WHEN SHE RECEIVED THE ADVANCE FROM THE STUDENTS . IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, COMPLETE DETAILS OF DEPOSITS AND REMIT TANCE ON BEHALF OF THE STUDENTS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER. SIMILARLY, AS REGARDS THE HOUSEHOLD EXPE NSES, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE FILED RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.1,45,000/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OF RS.37,000/- AND SHE HAS NOT D EPOSITED ANY AMOUNT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND UTILIZED THE INC OME FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SH E WAS LIVING WITH HER IN-LAWS AND HENCE NO OTHER EXPENSES WERE BORNE BY HER. WITH REGARD TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER ASKED TO FURNISH THE EVIDEN CE AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING 4 HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS NOT ED THAT AT THE FAG END OF THE YEAR, SOME DETAILS WERE FILED. THE DETAILS SUBMITTED INCLUDED SOME COPIES OF THE PASSPORT, REC EIPTS, ETC. HOWEVER, NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO RECONCILE THE ENTRIE S IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND F ILED THE DETAILS IN THE PAPER BOOK WITH REGARD TO ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND COPIES OF RECEIPTS, PASSPORT AND DETAIL S OF WITHDRAWAL, ETC. IT WAS CLAIMED IN THE PAPER BOOK THAT ALL THESE PAPERS WERE FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUT HORITIES. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE FACT OF FILING OF THE DOCUME NTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS SU MMONED. 5. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE PAPERS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK ARE PART OF THE RECO RD AND THAT THERE IS NO INITIAL IN THE ORDER-SHEET. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRE S RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON THE THREE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UN-EXP LAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS MADE BECAUSE THE A SSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT RECORD REVEALED THAT SOME D OCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE IS NO INITIAL IN 5 THE ORDER-SHEET AS PER THE RECORD PRODUCED BEFORE U S. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE DETAILS OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE FILED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER ASKED TH E ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 80C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. NO DETAILS ARE MENTIONED I N THE ORDER- SHEET AS WELL. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOTE D IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT COPIES OF THE PASSPORT AND RECE IPTS, ETC. HAVE BEEN FILED ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THERE WAS N O REASON TO MAKE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UN - EXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS CONSIDERING THE LAPSE ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-FILING OF THE DETAILS ON THIS ISSUE. FURTHER THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT DECIDE GR OUND NOS.2 AND 3 IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DESPITE SPECIFIC POINTS WERE RAISED BEFORE HIM FOR DELETION OF THE ADDITION. C ONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS A CASE WHERE WRONG FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DESPI TE THE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND NO RE ASON HAS BEEN EXPLAINED WHY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DID NO T DECIDE OTHER TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT IN THE A PPELLATE ORDER. NOTHING ADVERSE, THEREFORE, COULD BE ATTRI BUTED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER, THEREFORE, REQUI RES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 6. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO REDECIDE ALL TH E ABOVE ISSUES BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING 6 HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHO ULD GIVE SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE ANY RELEVANT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEC ISION ON ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH