Deepali Shashank Tansksale, Dhule V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 821/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0505 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL GANOO DEEPALI TANKSALE
• Section: 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , ! , # $ BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURV EDI, AM ITA NOS.819 TO 821/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2007-08 DEEPALI SHASHANK TANKSALE, C/O A.N. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE, 1 ST FLOOR, GARUD LIBRARY SHOPPING COMP, JAI ROAD, DHULE 424 001. PAN : ACJPT7659P . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DHULE. . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL GANOO DEEPALI TANKSALE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / DATE OF HEARING : 26.10.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.11.2016 % / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THE AFORESAID CAPTIONED THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESS EE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)-I, NASHIK, DATED 17.02.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007 -08. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, THE LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR THREE YEARS, BUT THE ISSUE IS IDEN TICAL IN ALL THE THREE YEARS EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNTS OF ADDITION AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY HIM WHILE ARGUING APPEAL FOR ONE YEAR WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ALL THE APPEALS AND THEREFORE ALL THE APPEALS COULD BE HEAR D TOGETHER. LD. DR DID NOT 2 ITA NOS.819 TO 821/PN/2014 OBJECT TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR. WE T HEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. HOWEVER, REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS IN IT A NO.819/PN/2014 (FOR AY 2005-06) IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER :- 3.1 THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL. IN RESPONSE TO NOTI CE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2005-06 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.50,000/-. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.5,50,000/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 DATED 17.02.2014 (IN APPEAL NO.N SK/CIT(A)-I/221 TO 223/2012- 13)) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVE D BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND: 1] THE ADDITION MADE U/S.69 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNE XPLAINED DEPOSITS IN LOAN A/C OF BANK OF RS.5,00,000/- SHOULD BE DELETED FULL Y. 3.2 THE AO, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FR OM DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)-1, NASHIK NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD DEPOSITED AGGREGATE CASH OF RS.25 LAKHS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 IN THE INDIRA SAH. BANK LTD., DHULE AND THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER INCOME-TAX RETURN. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION, THE CASH DEPOSITS WAS RS.5,00,000/-. THEREFORE, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE , ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AT RS.50,000/- FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07. BEFORE 3 ITA NOS.819 TO 821/PN/2014 AO, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD MORTGAGED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT PLOT NO.37, SURVEY NO.37(1), SATSANG COLONY DEOPUR, DHULE WHICH WAS IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND FOR GETTING A LOAN OF RS.25 LAK HS FROM INDIRA MAHAILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. FOR DOING ADVERTISING BUSINESS. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES HUSBAND EXPIRED ON 25.01.2004 IN CAR ACCIDENT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD GIVEN LOAN OF RS.23,17,000/- TO HER HUSBAND IN CHEQUES. HER HUSBAND RETURNED THE FULL AMOUNT BEFORE HIS DEATH. THE AMO UNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH FROM HER HUSBAND WAS DEPOSITED IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DAYS AND THUS THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH WAS REPAYMENT OF LOANS. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OF SOURCE OF DEPOSITS WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPT ABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE MADE THE ADDITION OF CASH IN VARIOUS YEARS AS UN EXPLAINED DEPOSITS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT O RDER, SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, AO'S REMAND REPORT DATED 20/12/2013, APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION DATED 05/02/2014 IN RESPONSE TO AO'S REMAND REPORT AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THE AP PELLANT HAD TAKEN 'HYPOTHECATION LOAN' OF RS.25 LAC FROM INDIRA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., DHULE, A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THIS LOAN ACCOUNT FURTHER REVEALS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ISSUED CHEQUES WORTH RS.23.17 LACS TO HER HUSBAND LATE SHRI SHASHA NK C. TANKSALE. IT IS ALSO REVEALED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEPOSITED CASH AMOU NTING TO RS.2 LACS ON 10/10/2002, RS.1.5 LACS ON 03/05/2003, RS.5 LACS ON 10.08.2004, RS.10 LACS ON 18/05/2005 AND RS.6 LACS ON 25/07/2006. IN REGARD T O THE ABOVE CASH DEPOSITS BY THE APPELLANT, AN ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY DDIT(INV .), NASHIK WHO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID CASH WAS GIVEN TO HER BY HER LATE HUSBAND BEFORE HIS DEATH ON 25/01/2004. THE APPELLA NT COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM IN SUPPORT OF HER C LAIM THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS GIVEN TO HER BY HER LATE HUSBAND BEFOR E HIS DEATH ON 25/01/2014. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO APP ELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION. A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT REVEALS THAT SHE HAD DEPOSITED RS.5 IACS ON 10.08.2 004 [PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005- 06], RS.10 LACS ON 18/05/2007 [PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2 006-07] AND RS.6 LACS ON 25/07/2006 [PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2007-08] I.E. MUCH A FTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND ON 25/01/2004. AS STATED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAD TAKE N A HYPOTHECATION LOAN ON INTEREST. HAD THIS CASH BEEN AVAILABLE WITH THE APP ELLANT AT THE TIME OF DEATH OF HER HUSBAND (25/01/2004) AS CLAIMED BY HER, SHE WOULD H AVE DEPOSITED THE ENTIRE CASH IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT AT THAT TIME ONLY. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A GAP OF ALMOST 7 MONTHS BETWEEN THE DEATH OF HER HUS BAND AND DEPOSIT OF RS.5 IACS AND A GAP OF NEARLY 14 MONTH FOR CASH DEPOSIT OF RS .10 LACS AND A GAP OF 30 MONTHS FOR CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.6 IACS, THE CONTENTIO N OF THE APPELLANT THAT CASH WAS GIVEN TO HER BY HER LATE HUSBAND BEFORE HIS DEATH S EEMS TO BE IMPROBABLE. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY DID SHE KEEP THE CASH WITH 4 ITA NOS.819 TO 821/PN/2014 HER AND DID NOT DEPOSIT THE SAME IN LOAN ACCOUNT. I N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HA S NOT COME OUT WITH THE FACTS FULLY AND CORRECTLY AND HER CONTENTION THAT A CASH OF RS. 21 LACS, DEPOSITED BY HER DURING A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08, WAS OUT OF THE C ASH GIVEN TO HER BY HER LATE HUSBAND BEFORE HIS DEATH ON 25/01/2004 IS DEVOID OF MERIT. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES ALSO DO NOT SUPPORT HER CASE. I AM THEREF ORE, OF THE OPINION THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED CAS H DEPOSITS FOR THE ABOVE THREE YEARS, THE SAME ARE CONFIRMED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NO W IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.1 BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE IN PERSON APPEARED ALON G WITH LD. AR. SHE AND LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF HER HUSBAND AND BECAUSE OF WHICH SHE HAS BEEN COMPELLED TO SHIFT TO HER PARENTS HOUSE AT PUNE AND UNDERGOING SEVERE FIN ANCIAL CRISIS. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE B ANK WAS THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN WHICH HE HAD LENT TO HER HUSBAND AND WHICH WAS RETU RNED BY HER HUSBAND BEFORE HIS DEATH. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO SEVER E DOMESTIC PROBLEMS AND DUE TO DEATH OF HER HUSBAND, SHE IS UNABLE TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHE IS UNDER GOING SEVERE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND TO DEMONSTRATE HER PRESENT FINANCIAL POSITION, SHE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF HER ACCOUNT WITH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK (DECCAN GYMKANA BRANCH PUNE) FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2013 TO 26.1 0.2016. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHI CH HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY CIT(A) ARE ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIONS AND ARE NOT BACKED BY ANY TANGIBLE EVIDENCES. SHE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE TOTALI TY OF THE FACTS, THE ADDITION BE DELETED. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). 5 ITA NOS.819 TO 821/PN/2014 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO AD DITION OF THE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN ASSESSEES CONSISTENT STAND BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT WERE THE REPAYMENT OF LOANS BY THE HUS BAND OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE WAS ALIVE AND HER HUSBAND WAS LOOK ING AFTER ALL THE TRANSACTIONS. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE LOST HER HUSBAND IN CAR ACCIDENT IN 2004. THOUGH IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSE E HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE HER CONTENTIONS WITH ANY TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS ALSO A FACT, THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD PLACED BY THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE WRONG OR INCOR RECT. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE BA SIS OF PRESUMPTION LIKE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE KEPT THE CASH WITH HER FOR LONG AN D DID NOT DEPOSIT THE SUM IN HER LOAN ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY TO LIQUIDATE THE LOAN. BEF ORE US, ASSESSEE IN PERSON HAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND AND DOMESTIC ISSUES AT HER END, SHE COULD NOT FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS. THE AFORES AID CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. BEFORE U S, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS WHICH ALS O SUPPORTS HER CONTENTION OF FINANCIAL CRISIS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE WRONG, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE THEREFORE DIRECT ITS D ELETION. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. BEFORE US, SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR AY 2005-06 ARE SIMILAR TO AY 2006-07 AND 2007-08, W E THEREFORE FOR THE SIMILAR REASONS AS STATED HEREINABOVE WHILE DISPOSING THE A PPEAL FOR AY 2005-06 AND FOR 6 ITA NOS.819 TO 821/PN/2014 SIMILAR REASONS, ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE IN A Y 2006-07 AND AY 2007-08. THUS THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. / GCVSR % & ' () *) / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK; 4) THE CIT-I, NASHIK; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. % / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE