Purushotam Kumar, Karnal V. ITO WARD - 3, Karnal

ITA 7285/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6891 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PURUSHOTAM KUMAR; PRASHANT KUMAR SON OF
• Keywords: Gift; Salary income; Set aside
• Section: 201; 68; 148

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA . NO. 7 285/ DEL/20 1 9 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 11 - 1 2 ) S HRI PURUSHOTAM KUMAR, FLAT NO. L 1012, SPRING FIELD ASSOTECH, ZETA 1, GREATER NOIDA 201 310 [U.P.] PAN: A Q FPK8874R VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD : 3, KARNAL . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PURUSHOTAM KUMAR (ASSESSEE); & SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR; (SON OF ASSESSEE) REVENUE BY: SHRI R. K. GUPTA, SR. D . R . ; DATE OF HEARING : 1 2 /0 8 /2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 /0 8 /2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. TH I S APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL DATED 0 4 .0 6 .201 9 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 1 2 WHEREIN, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ONE GRIEVANCE ABOUT THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,34,870 MADE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 2. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS RAISED ONLY GROUND THAT SUM OF CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE SHOWS THAT INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED A CASH OF RS. 10,20,500/ - AND HAS ALSO THE TERM DEPOSIT OF RS. 29 LAKHS AND RECEIVED BANK INTEREST OF RS. 54,348/ - AND ALSO EARNED SALA RY OF RS. 4,02,901/ - . THEREFORE, THE LD AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UN DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 43,77,749/ - . NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 23.03.2018 . THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF APPEARED BEFORE THE LD AO AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD AO FOUND THAT CASH D EPOSIT TO THE EXTENT OF PAGE | 2 ONLY RS. 6,40,500/ - IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND FURTHER THE BANK INTEREST WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . THE SALARY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 3,04,771/ - AND BANK INTEREST OF RS. 1,42,774/ - WAS ADDED . TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED OF RS. 10,88,050/ - . 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT ( A) . THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,34,870/ - OUT OF CASH OF RS. 6,40,000/ - AND BALANCE SUM WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS RECEIVED BY HIM THROUGH HIS SON FROM AUSTRALIA WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO TO VERIFY THAT THE SON IN FACT WAS SON OF THE ASSESSEE . WITH RESPECT TO THE BANK INTEREST THE LD CIT(A) DIRECTED THE LD AO TO VERIFY THE AMOUNT OF BANK INTEREST R ECEIVED AS THE LD AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 88,426/ - WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE BANK INTEREST RECEIVED BY HIM IS ONLY RS. 15,038/ - THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED PERSONALLY DESPITE ONLY VIRTUAL HEARING WAS PERMITTED, AS HE DID NOT HAVE ANY FACILITY OF VIRTUAL HEARING. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS HEARD PERSONALLY AND LD DR WAS HEARD VIRTUALLY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE LD CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF SUMS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS SON UP TO 20.10.2010 OF RS. 2,05,630/ - . HOWEVER, HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 49,965/ - ON 15.11.2009 AND RS. 58,240/ - ON 10.0 2.2009 FOR WHICH THE CREDIT HAS NOT GIVEN . HE SUBMITTED THAT HIS SON IS STAYING IN AUSTRALIA AND HE SENDS MONEY THROUGH INTERNATIONAL MONEY TRANSFER MONEYGRAM . HE PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF SUCH MONEY CREDIT . WITH RESPECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE LD CIT (A) , THAT WHETHER THE SUM IS RECEIVED FROM THE SON OF ASSESSEE OR NOT , HE PRODUCED THE PASSPORT OF HIS SON WHERE ADDRESS IS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS MENTIONED AS FATHER OF PASSPORT HOLDER, HIS SON , NISHANT . WITH RESPECT TO THE SEVERAL SUMS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SUMS ARE OF VERY SMALL AMOUNT ARE RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM HIS RELATIVES, FROM HIS SON AND FROM HIS SISTER . HE HAS GIVEN THE SAID NAMES OF THE RELATIVES AS WELL AS SHOWS THE SOURCES OF THE INCOME OF THE RELATIVES . HE HAS ALSO RECEIVED SMALL GIFT FROM HIS FRIENDS FOR WHICH HE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THEIR INCOME AS WELL AS THEIR CONTACT NO . HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD AO DESERVES TO BE DELETED. PAGE | 3 6. THE LD DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD AO. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED INDIVIDUAL . HE WAS WORKING WITH RED CROSS SOCIETY EARLIER . FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SUMS FROM HIS SON WHO IS SETTLED IN AUSTRALIA AND WHO SENDS MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH MONEY GRAM . THIS SUM IS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED PASSPORT OF HIS SON WHEREIN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS MENTIONED AND THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS AS THE FATHER OF THE PASSPORT HOLDER . IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SUM SENT BY SON OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH MONEY GRAM . TO THAT EXTENT THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED, THE LEARNED CIT A HELD THAT IF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS S ATISFIED ON VERIFICATION THAT THE SUMS ARE SENT BY THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED . WE HAVE VERIFIED THE PASSPORT, WHICH COULD HAVE ALSO BEEN VERIFIED BY THE LEARNED CIT A HIMSELF . WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE SUMS ARE SE NT BY THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE . WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER SUM, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILS OF THE SUM IS RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM HIS RELATIVES AND FROM HIS FRIENDS . THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT VERIFICATION HAS DISBELIEVED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION . THE LEARNED CIT A ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO . WE FIND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE SOURCE OF THE INCOME AS WELL AS THE ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF THOSE RELATIVES, THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HIS UNEXPLAINED INCOME WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION BEING CONDUCTED BY THE LEARNED AO . EVEN OTHERWISE, THE AMOUNTS ARE SMALL AND IT WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE MOSTLY FROM HIS RELATIVES AND CONFIRMED BY THE LENDERS . IN THE RESULT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . THEREFORE WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 434,870/ WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH DEPOSI TED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT A . THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE REVERSED. 8. THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON CONCL USION OF THE HEARING ON 12 /0 8 /2021. PAGE | 4 - SD / - - S D / - ( AMIT SHUKLA ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 1 2 /0 8 /2021 . * AK KEOT * COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT; 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A PPEALS ) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI