Shri Sheetal Jain, Indore V. The I.T.O., Indore

ITA 98/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2699 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY SODANI

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. KAUSHIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.98/IND/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 SMT. SHEETAL JAIN PAN ADZPJ 1579 K APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3) INDORE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY SODANI, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 1.12.2009 WHEREIN FIRST GROUND RAISED IS THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.6 LACS DEPOSITED IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT HUSBAND & WIFE BUT A CTUALLY BELONGS TO THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. 2 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING JOINT ACCOUNT WITH HER HUSBAND IN UNION BANK OF INDIA AND THE IMPUGNED ENTRIES BELONG TO THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIO N IS QUITE UNJUSTIFIED. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.4 LACS WERE DE POSITED OUT OF TRANSFER FROM STATE BANK OF INDORE HOUSING LOAN ACC OUNT BY PAY ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND RS.2 LACS FROM GARIMA VYAS (CONSTRUCTION WORK) AND THESE AMOUNTS WERE ADDED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,75,000/- (GROUND N O.2) IN SBI TERM LOAN ACCOUNT, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPO SITED THIS AMOUNT FROM HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY DEFEN DED THE ADDITION BY CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PR ODUCED NECESSARY EVIDENCE NOR EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS . IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THESE ENTRIES EVEN NOW. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES, THE ASSERTIONS PUT FORTH BY THE LD. RESPECT COUNSEL AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THIS APPEAL IS REMANDED BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WILL EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHALL DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM, FOR WH ICH, DUE OPPORTUNITY BE 3 PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ON LY. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF L EARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 30 TH JULY, 2010. (B.R. KAUSHIK) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 30 TH JULY, 2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, G UARD FILE !VYAS!