Deepak Jain, Delhi V. ITO WARD - 25(4), New Delhi

ITA 9539/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9091 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 9539/DEL/2019 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 DEEPAK JAIN, B-11, BLOCK-B, SWASTHYA VIHAR, DELHI-110091 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-25(4), NEW DELHI-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A EXPJ4536P ASSESSEE BY : SH. R. S. SINGHVI, CA REVENUE BY : SH. AJAY KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 03 . 0 8 .20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09 .0 8 .20 2 1 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-9, NEW DELHI DATED 20.09.20 19. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE: 1(I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 72,57,368/- U/S. 69C OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF SPECULATING LOSS WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF FAC TS OR OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSE. (II) THAT GENUINENESS OF LOSS IS SUPPORTED FROM DET AILS PLACED ON RECORD AND IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSE HAVIN G NOT CLAIMED ANY SUCH LOSS, THERE IS NO CASE FOR ADD ITION OF RS. 72,57,368/-. ITA NO.9539/DEL/2019 DEEPAK JAIN 2 (III) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 69C HAVE BEEN APP LIED ON ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY BASIS. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING STATUTORY DEDUCTION U/S.80C IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF INSURANCE PREMIUM TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,760/- EVEN THOUGH T HE GENUINENESS AND JUSTIFICATION OF CLAIM IS NOT IN DI SPUTE. 3(I) THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONSIDERED ENHANCEMENT OF RS. 5 LAKHS ON ALLEGED GROUND OF CAS H DEPOSIT EVEN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE OF CONSEQUENTIAL NATURE BASED ON DIRECTION OF ITAT AND ISSUE OF CASH DEPOSIT BEING N OT SUBJECT MATTER OF DIRECTION OF ITAT, THERE IS NO CA SE FOR ANY SUCH ADDITION. (II) THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THIS ISSUE WAS NOT PART O F GROUNDS IN DISPUTE OR CONSIDERED BY AO DURING ORIGI NAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO VALID BAS IS FOR ANY SUCH ADDITION. (III) THAT ENHANCEMENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITION WAS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND SAME IS IN TOTAL DISREGARD TO PROVISIONS OF SEC. 250(4) OF THE IT. A CT, 1961. (II) THAT IN ANY CASE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FO R ANY SUCH ADDITION EVEN ON MERITS. 3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. 4. THE FACTS EMANATES ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.31,000/- WITH TH E BROKER NAMELY, RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD. IN ACCOUNT CODE NO. DJ1502 THE ASSESSEE HAD SHARE TRANSACTIONS OF RS.72,57,368 /- WHICH HAS BEEN REPORTED IN THE AIR. ITA NO.9539/DEL/2019 DEEPAK JAIN 3 OUT OF THE ABOVE SAID TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE IN CURRED LOSS OF RS.60,870/-. OWING TO THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, LEFT W ITH NO CHOICE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF ENT IRE QUANTITY OF SHARE TRANSACTION. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE SHARE TRANSACTIONS WERE SPECULATIVE IN N ATURE AND THE ASSESSEE INDEED INCURRED LOSS TO THE TUNE O F RS.60,870/- AND ALSO IGNORED THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE BROKER TO THIS EXTENT. 5. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE RECORD, WE HAVE N O HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN MARG IN MONEY OF RS.31,000/- WITH THE BROKER WITH WHICH THE BROKER H AS ENTERED INTO A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION OF RS.72,57,368/- ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE INCURRED LOSS OF RS.60,870/-, HENCE, WE HE REBY HOLD THAT, NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUANTUM OF SHAR E TRANSACTIONS GROSSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CALLED FOR. 6. THE OTHER ISSUE INVOLVE IN THE APPEAL RELATES TO ENHANCEMENT OF THE TAXABLE AMOUNT BY THE LD. CIT (A ) BY RS.5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ST ATEMENT. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THIS APPEAL IS IN CONSEQUENC E TO THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 1 7.07.2018. SINCE, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS BEYOND THE MANDATE OF THE SAID ORDER, THE ADDITION IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 7. FURTHER, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE ALSO, WHEREIN WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CASH IN HAND OF RS.9,17,700/- AS ON 21.03.2007 AND THE CASH WITHDRA WALS FROM ITA NO.9539/DEL/2019 DEEPAK JAIN 4 THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.11,27, 600/-. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE CASH IN HAND , CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE SUSTAINABLE. 8. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF RS.15,760/- UNDER SECTION 80C. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PREMIUM PAID TO LIC AT PAGE N O. 44 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE FACT OF THE PREMIUM OF PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN IN DISPUTE BY THE REVENUE AT THIS JUNCTURE. HE NCE, WE DIRECT THAT THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE CLAIM BE PERMITTE D. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/08/2021. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (DR. B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 09/08/2021 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR