Mrs. Sangeeta Arora, Noida V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 793/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6513 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 06-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-I, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.793/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SANGEETA ARORA, E-16, SECTOR 41, NOIDA. VS. ITO, WARD- 48(3), NEW DELHI PAN : AIAPA 4478 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJEEV MAGO, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI F. R. MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 06-12-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-12-2016 O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-21, NEW DELHI, U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,40,450/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY FOR EXAMINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATI NG TO RS.30,59,000/- IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS WITH SYNDICATE BANK, LODHI ROA D, NBCC BRANCH AS PER AIR INFORMATION. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133 (6), BANK PROVIDED COPY OF STATEMENT OF JOINT SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO.914420 10007059 ALONG WITH 2 ITA NO.793/DEL/2016 HER HUSBAND, SHRI RAVI ARORA. THE ASSESSEE IN HER REPLY STATED THAT SHE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT MAINTENANCE OF ANY JOINT ACCOUNT, W HICH SHE EVER OPENED AND OPERATED, IN CAPACITY OF FIRST ACCOUNT HOLDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE HER HUSBAND. HOWE VER, SINCE SHE COULD NOT PRODUCE HER HUSBAND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.30,59,000/-. 3. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACT ION, INTER-ALIA, OBSERVING THAT EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE 45 OF PAPER BOOK WHEREIN REPLY DATED 07.11.2013 IS CONTAINED AND POI NTED OUT THAT IT WAS, INTER-ALIA, STATED THAT IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT ALL TRANSACTIONS R ELATED TO HER HUSBAND WHO WAS THE FIRST ACCOUNT HOLDER. LD. COUN SEL, FURTHER, REFERRED TO PAGE 17 OF PAPER BOOK WHEREIN COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT IS CONTAINED AND POINTED OUT THAT LOAN WAS TAKEN BY ASSESSEES HUSBA ND FROM KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK FOR WHICH RE-PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN THE ACCOUNT. HE REFERRED TO PAGE 23 OF PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE CERTIFICATE FR OM SYNDICATE BANK IS CONTAINED FROM WHICH IT IS CLEAR STATED THAT ACCOUN T WAS OPENED IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAVI ARORA AND ASSESSEES NAME WAS SUBSEQUE NTLY ADDED ON 11.09.2002 AFTER SHRI RAVI ARORAS MARRIAGE. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE 3 ITA NO.793/DEL/2016 ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEES PLE A FROM THE VERY BEGINNING HAS BEEN THAT HER HUSBAND WAS THE FIRST HOLDER OF T HE BANK ACCOUNT WITH SYNDICATE BANK AND IT WAS HER HUSBAND WHO WAS BENEF ICIAL OWNER OF THE BANK ACCOUNT. THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BE EN CONTROVERTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE CER TIFICATE OF BANK THAT THE FIRST ACCOUNT HOLDER WAS THE HUSBAND AND NOT THE WIFE. U NDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNLESS IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE S AID BANK ACCOUNT RELATED TO WIFE AND NOT TO HUSBAND. I FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS ORDER DE-NOVO AFTER SPECIFICALLY VERIFYING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. THE NORMAL PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE ENT RIES PERTAIN TO FIRST ACCOUNT HOLDER AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT NO ENTRIES P ERTAINED TO ASSESSEE THEN NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE, THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE-NOVO CONSIDERATION. 4 ITA NO.793/DEL/2016 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 23-12-2016. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT; 2) THE RESPONDENT; 3) THE CIT; 4) THE CIT(A)-, NEW DELHI; 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI; BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI