Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1116 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
03-06-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
21-11-2019
Judgement Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC-1 BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO. 9061/DEL/2019 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12] NEELAM RANI NAGPAL VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFIC ER C/O PRANSHU GOEL, CA WARD 36 (5) 5A/3A, ANSARI ROAD NEW DELHI DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI PAN: AABNP 9641 D [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 02.06.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.06.2020 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRANSHU GOEL, ADV REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K. GUPTA, SR. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI DATED 30.09.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2 2. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSE SSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS. 40.10 LAKHS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT R ETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AS PER AIR INF ORMATION IN RELATION TO DEPOSIT OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 40.10 LAKHS IN THE HDFC BANK A/C. STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DE POSIT IN THE HDFC BANK A/C. 4. IN HER REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT AFTER THE DEMISE OF HER HUSBAND AND WHILE SEARCHING FOR SOME DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE FOUND THE CASH STASHED IN THE ALMIRAH. THE ASSESSEE IMME DIATELY DEPOSITED THE CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND UTILISED THE SAME FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM SYNDICATE BANK TO AVOID RECOVERY PR OCEEDINGS FILED BY THE BANK. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT HER HUSBAND WAS WITHDRAWING CASH FROM THE BANK AND THE SAME WAS KEPT IN THE HOU SE WHICH WAS NOT IN HER KNOWLEDGE AND WHEN THE CASH WAS FOUND, THE S AME WAS IMMEDIATELY DEPOSITED AND UTILISED FOR REPAYMENT OF BANK LOAN. 3 5. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND AN Y FAVOUR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO TREATED THE CASH DEPOSIT AS U NDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 40.10 LAKH S. 6. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) AND REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE SOURCE, AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESS EE, HAS NOT BEEN CORROBORATED BY ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE. 8. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS OF CASH WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS IN THE SYNDICATE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE BANK STATEMENT OF SYNDICATE BANK WHICH ARE E XHIBITED AT PAGES 12 TO 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 9. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E THAT SUFFICIENT CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED DEPOSIT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THA T EVEN THE WITHDRAWALS WERE IN EXCESS OF DEPOSITS MADE. THERE FORE, THERE IS NO 4 REASON WHY THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CI T(A). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EMPHASISED THAT ALL THESE EVIDENCES WERE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BUT NONE OF THEM WERE EXAMINED FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE. 10. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE F INDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. DR THA T THE EVIDENCES REFERRED TO BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APP EAR TO HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THE ISSUES VIS A VIS THE DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. IT IS TRUE THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS MADE ANY COMMENT ON THE SUFFICIENT CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSE E FROM SYNDICATE BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT THERE IS NOT HING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THESE WITHDRAWALS WERE UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE OR HER HUSBAND (DURING HIS LIFE TIME) FOR SOME OTHER PURPO SES. 5 12. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THESE DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCES NEED TO BE EXAMINED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, RESTORE THESE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECT ED TO EXAMINE THE CASH WITHDRAWALS STATEMENT VIS A-VIS THE BANK STATE MENT AND IF THE WITHDRAWALS ARE FOUND TO COVER THE DEPOSITS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER MAY ACCEPT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR VER IFICATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO. 9061/DEL/2019 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.06 .2020. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE ] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 03 RD JUNE, 2020. VL/ 6 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT ASST. REGISTRAR 4. CIT(A) ITAT, NEW DELHI 5. DR DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER
Mehul