Usha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh V. ITO, Noida

ITA 988/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7031 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: USHA NAGAR HERSELF
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-2, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 988/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 20 0 1 - 0 2 MS. USHA NAGAR, VILL.-MUFAD (NAWADA) POST-DANKAUR, GREATER NOIDA, G.B. NAGAR, UP (PAN: AEJPN9465P) VS. ITO, WARD-4, AAYKAR BHAWAN A-2D, SECTOR-24, NOIDA-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SMT. USHA NAGAR (HERSELF) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. AMRIT LAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 08-09-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 04-10-2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-NOIDA, DATED 22.11.2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ACIT IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRESENTED THE PARTIES FROM WHOM CASH WERE RECEIVED, FOR VERIFICATION OF THE TRANSACTION OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO. 2 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADD AND R EVISE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DEPOSITED RS. 12,98,800/- IN CASH IN HER BANK ACCOUNT BUT WAS NOT FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE TO ASSESS THE INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 02.3.2006 DECLARING NIL INCOME. HOWEVER, DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE, EVEN AFTER BEING GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, COULD NOT FURNISH THE SUPPORTING EVIDE NCE IN RESPECT OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,98,800/- FOUND DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TREATED THE SAID CASH CREDIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 12,98,800/- VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.12.2006 PASSED U/S. 144/147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPU GNED ORDER 22.11.2014 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, MS. USHA NAGAR (THE ASS ESSEE) HAS STATED THAT SHE IS A VERY POOR LADY AND SHE RECEIVED THE MONEY IN CASH AS ADVANCE FROM SH. RAVINDER BHATI AGAINST THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON BEHALF OF HER FATHER SH. PRITAM SINGH WHICH SHE DEP OSITED IN HER BANK UNDER THE BELIEF THAT THIS AMOUNT IS NOT TAXABLE. S HE FURTHER STATED THAT 3 SINCE THE DEAL WAS NOT MATERIALIZED AND ACCORDINGLY , MR. RAVINDER BHATI HAS TAKEN HIS MONEY BACK WHICH SHOULD NOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT IF ANY ADDITION IS REQUIRED, IT SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF SH. RAVINDER BHATI. HENCE, SH E REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MAY BE DELETED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH RELEVANT RECORDS AVAI LABLE WITH US. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT RELATING TO THE A.Y. 2001-02 W AS COMPLETED U/S. 144/147 OF THE IT ACT 1961, ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS .12,98,000/- AS AGAINST NIL RETURNED INCOME ( AS PER ITR FILED IN C OMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE U/S 148) AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.12,98,800/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN S/B ACCOUNT, AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX ( APPEAL) IN HIS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING O FFICER'S ACTION. I NOTE THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE MONEY AS ADVANCE FROM SH. RAVINDER BHATI AGAINST THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D ON BEHALF OF HER FATHER SHRI PRITAM SINGH AND THE ASSESSEE UNDER A BONAFI DE BELIEF THAT CASH AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK, WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM S H. RAVINDER BHATI, AGAINST SALE AGREEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, WAS NO T TAXABLE. SH. RAVINDER BHATI IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT HE HAD GIVEN RS. 13,25,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE P URCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF HER FATHER AND SINCE THE SALE WAS NOT FINAL IZED HE RECEIVED BACK 4 THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS ADMITTED IN HIS ORDER VIDE PARA 2(I) AT PAGE 2 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SHRI RA VINDER BHATI WHO PURCHASED THE LAND OF HER FATHER WAS PRODUCED AND H E HAS STATED ON OATH IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE DEAL FOR A VAST LAND AT V ILLAGE JAGANPUR DUABA WAS BEING MADE WHERE SHARE OF SHRI PRITAM SINGH, MY FATHER WAS AS THE OWNER OF AROUND 14-15 BIGHA. THE DEAL OF THE LAND O F SHRI PRITAM SINGH (ASSESSEES FATHER) WAS SETTLED FOR RS. 25,00,000/- OUT OF WHICH HE HAS GIVEN RS. 13,25,000/- AS ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE AG AINST PURCHASE OF THE SAID LAND. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT WHEN IT COMES TO HIS NOTICE/KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SAID LAND IS ON ' PATTA' AND 'PATTA' WAS EXPECTED TO BE CANCELLED ANY TIME, SO HE HAS TAKEN HIS MONEY BACK. I FURTHER NOTE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS, A REMAND REPORT REGARDING WORTHINESS OF SH. RAVINDER BHATI WAS CALLED FOR BY LD. CIT (A) FROM THE CONCERNED A.O. (I.T.O. WARD -4, NOIDA) WHO, VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 29-03-2010, HAS STATED IN HIS CONC LUSION THAT 'THE CAPACITY OF SH. RAVINDRA BHATI TO ADVANCE FOR PURCH ASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND MAY BE CONSIDERED' KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,98,800/- MADE BY THE AO IS NOT S USTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND HAS BEEN WRONGLY ADDED WITHOUT CORROBORA TING ANY EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WH ICH IS ALSO CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITI ON IN DISPUTE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND IS HEREBY DELETED. 5 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/10/2016 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 04/10/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. D R, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES