VIJAY SINGH, MEERUT V. ITO, WARD- 2(4), MEERUT

ITA 7151/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0309 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 271(1)(c); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.7151/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR -2009-10) SH. VIJAY SINGH S/O SH. TULARAM H.NO.454, BEGUM BAGH, MEERUT. PAN-HHXPS 3300G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-2(4), MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. VINOD GOYAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. SANDEEP KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 22.12.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29.12.2020 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 12.09.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MEERUT {CIT(A)} FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2 ITA NO.7151/DEL/2017 SH. VIJAY SINGH . VS. ITO 2.0 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS PER AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS AM OUNTING TO RS.59,97,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND FOR THIS REA SON THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.5 9,97,000/- AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE AS SESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBM ITTED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND BASED ON SUCH REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT (A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DEPOSITS OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.59,97,000/-, CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.14,50,000/- COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESS EE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE GOT PARTIAL RELIEF WITH THE ADDITION BEING RESTRICTED TO RS.14,50,000/- BY THE LD. CIT (A). 2.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL AND HAS CHALLENGED THE ADJUDICATION BY THE LD. CIT (A) BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 3 ITA NO.7151/DEL/2017 SH. VIJAY SINGH . VS. ITO 1. THAT NO NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 14 4 IS BAD IN LAW BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUPPORTING BY SECTI ON 147 OF LT. ACT 1961. 2. THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 59,97, 000/- DEPOSITED IN BANK IN P.N.B. IN FACT THE COPY OF BAN K ACCOUNT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE DUE TO THE NOTEBANDI AND HEAVY RUSH IN BANK THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH BANK DETAIL AND REPLY. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD HIS AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED AT SHAKARPUR, MEERUT WHICH IS MORE THAN 12 KMS AWAY FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT. HENCE, IT DOES N OT FORM PART OF CAPITAL ASSET AND SALE AMOUNT DEPOSITE D IN BANK DOES NOT ATTRACT INCOME TAX. 4. THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C) I NITIATED BY A.O. IN ROUTINE AND MECHANICAL MANNER, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED IN LAW. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT TO ADD, MODIFY OR DELETE ANY GROUND THE APPEAL PROCEEDING. 3.0 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBM ITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT PERTAINS TO ADVANCE RECEIVED AG AINST SALE OF 4 ITA NO.7151/DEL/2017 SH. VIJAY SINGH . VS. ITO AGRICULTURAL LAND. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE -13 OF A SALE DEED DATED 07.03.2009 AND SUBMITTED THAT IN CLAUSE-4, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN AN ADVAN CE OF RS.14,25,000/- IN CASH AGAINST THE SALE OF SUCH AGR ICULTURAL LAND. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.14,50,0 00/- RELATES TO THIS ADVANCE WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ON DIFFER ENT DATES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ALSO BUT THE SAME WAS NOT ACCEPTED. 4.0 PER CONTRA, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE (DR) PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN DUE RELIEF TO THE ASSESS EE BASED ON THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND THAT THIS EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 5.0 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE A LSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE MAIN ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS THAT THE CASH FLOW SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE BANK DEPOSITS OF THE ASSESSEE IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, ACCOUNT NO.0318 0003 0034 7218. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS REFERRED TO 5 ITA NO.7151/DEL/2017 SH. VIJAY SINGH . VS. ITO THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BEFORE HIM, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SPECIFICALLY POINT ED OUT THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BETWEEN 24.04.20 08 AND 03.05.2008 TOTALING TO RS.14,50,000/- COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE SALE OF LAND, AS CLAIMED. THE FOLL OWING CHART GIVES A BREAK-UP OF THE CASH TRANSACTIONS REMAINING EXPLAIN ED: SL NO. DATE AMOUNT CHEQUE/CASH 1. 24.04.2008 9,00,000/ - CASH 2. 26.04.2008 1,00,000/ - CHEQUE 3. 26.04.2008 1,00,000/ - CHEQUE 4. 26.04.2008 1,00,000/ - CHEQUE 5. 29.04.2008 1,50,000/ - CHEQUE 6. 03.05.2008 1,00,000/ - CASH TOTAL 14,50,000/- 26.04.2008 5.1 WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE COPY OF SALE DEED FUR NISHED BEFORE US WHEREIN ON PAGE-13, CLAUSE-4, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF RS.14,25,000/- IN CAS H TOWARDS ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS PER T HE CHART ABOVE, THE DEPOSITS REMAINING UNEXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO HAVING CHEQUE DEPOSIT ENTRIES. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR HAS N OT SUBMITTED ANY BREAK-UP OR DETAILS OF RS.14,25,000/- RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 6 ITA NO.7151/DEL/2017 SH. VIJAY SINGH . VS. ITO THUS, THE LD. AR COULD NOT CO-RELATE THE BANK DEPOS ITS WITH THE CASH DEPOSITS. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO REFERRED TH E REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS POINTED OUT THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 4,50,000/- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES REGARDING THESE DEPOSITS. T HE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VAGUE AND DID NOT THROW ANY LIGHT ON THE ISSUE. WE ARE ALSO OF TH E OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS B Y CO-RELATING THE SAME TO THE ADVANCES RECEIVED ON VARIOUS DATES. ALL THE SAME, LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF T HE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE TH E LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ISS UE AFRESH BASED ON THE EVIDENCES BEING FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SU BSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 7 ITA NO.7151/DEL/2017 SH. VIJAY SINGH . VS. ITO 6.0 IN THE FINAL RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH DECEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29/12/2020 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI