Smt. Harleen Kaur Anand, New Delhi V. ITO., Ward-1(2), Gwalior

ITA 94/AGR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6356 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH: AGRA BEFORE S HRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 94 /AGRA/201 6 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 20 0 6 - 07 ) SMT. HARLEEN KAUR ANAND JANAK GANJ, LASHKAR, GWALIOR. PAN NO. AEXPA4974Q (ASSESSEE) V S .. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1 ( 2 ), GWALIOR. (R EVENUE ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI PANKAJ GARGH, AR . REVENUE BY SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR.DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 16 . 03 .201 6 , IN RELA TION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 6 - 07, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY, ILLEGALLY AND ARBITRARILY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/ - AND RS. 3,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AND EXCESS OF CASH DEPOSIT RESPECTIVELY. 2. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND ON LAW IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION AND IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,53,000/ - . THE ADDITION CONFIRMED IS ON MERE SURMISES. DATE OF HEARING 10 .0 4 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 .0 4 .2017 I.T.A NO. 94/AGRA/2016 2 3. BECAUSE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT FULLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS AND THE CASH DEPOSIT AND HENCE THE ADDIT ION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE, HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: 4.3 VIDE GROUND NO. 3 THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF HH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.1,53,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED. THE AO ASKED THE SOURCES OF WITHDRAWAL OF 1,50,000/ - OF HH EXPENSES. REPLY OF THE APPELLANT WAS THAT WITHDRAWAL WAS OUT OF THE CASH AVAILABLE AT THE BEGINNING. REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AO MADE THE ADDITION OF HH 1,50,000/ - AND RS.3000/ - (EXCESS OF CASH DEPOSIT OF 3.51 LA CS OVER CASH WITHDRAWALS OF 3.48 LACS). IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE SO CALLED CASH FUND FLOW STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE AO HAS NOT BEEN FILED. FURTHER, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHAT WAS THE NECESSITY OF WITHDRAWING THE CASH FURTHER FROM THE BANK EVEN F OR HH PURPOSES WHEN IT WAS ALREADY HAVING THE HUGE CASH IN HAND. REGULAR DEPOSIT OF CASH AND THEN WITHDRAWAL INDICATES THAT THERE WAS NO ACTUAL CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE AS ALLEGED IN THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH WAS LATER REVISED. AS A MATTER OF FACT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE (EXCEPT THE SELF SERVING BALANCE SHEET) AT ALL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CASH IN HAND WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. I FAIL TO I.T.A NO. 94/AGRA/2016 3 UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN IF IT WAS THERE WHERE WAS THE NEED TO WITHDRAW FURTHER. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT APPE AL TO LOGIC. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED BY THE AO, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD AND GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED I N FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT THE AO ILLEGALLY IGNORED THE DETAILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND DETAILED EXPLANATION FILED AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HERSELF IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2006, ATTACHED WITH THE ITR FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , HAS SHOWN THE A MOUNT OF RS.1.5 LACS AS WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES , WHICH AMOUNT WAS DULY DEDUCTED FROM HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE LD. DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED BEFORE THE AO , BALANCE SHEET (APB 21 - 23) WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND BALANCE SHEET (APB 24) WITH THE REVISED RETURN. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE ORIGINAL AND REVISED BALANCE SHEET IS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL BALANCE SHEET, CASH IN HAND WAS MISTAKENLY SHOWN AT RS.28,43,848/ - AND LOAN TO JASDEEP ANAND HUF WAS AT RS.96, 70,000/ - . I T WAS WHEN THIS MISTAKE CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE REVISED BALANCE SHEET WAS FILED, RECTIFYING THIS MISTAKE AND SHOWING CASH BALANCE AT RS.15,83,848/ - AND LOAN TO JASDEEP ANAND HUF AT RS.1,09,30,000/ - . THIS POSITION HAS NOT BEE N DISPUTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). I.T.A NO. 94/AGRA/2016 4 5. IN THE ORIGINAL BALANCE SHEET AS WELL AS IN THE REVISED ONE, EXCEPT THE CHANGE IN BOTH THESE FIGURES, THERE IS NO OTHER CHANGE. REMARKABLY, THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.1.5 LACS WAS SHOWN IN BOTH THE BALANCE SHEETS. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE IS JUS TIFIED AND IS ACCEPTED AS SUCH. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REVERSED . THE ADDITION IS DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 / 0 4 /2017. SD/ - (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 26 /0 4 /2017 *AKV* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A NO. 94/AGRA/2016 5 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED (DNS) 12 .0 4 .2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 13 .04.2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.