SARIKA SACHDEVA, NEW DELHI V. ACIT Central circle-01, NEW DELHI

MA 141/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7233 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP KR. MISHRA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

1 MA Nos. 140 & 141/Del/2024 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUAMR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A No. 140/Del/2024 In (ITA No. 67/Del/2021 ( A.Y 2016-17) Sarika Sachdeva 36, Godavari Apartments Alaknanda, Near Yamuna Apartment, Kalkaji New Delhi-110 019 PAN-AUAPS 0438C (APPLICANT) Vs ACIT Central Circle-01 E-2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110 055 (RESPONDENT) M.A No. 141/Del/2024 In (ITA No. 68/Del/2021 ( A.Y 2017-18) Sarika Sachdeva 36, Godavari Apartments Alaknanda, Near Yamuna Apartment, Kalkaji New Delhi-110 019 PAN-AUAPS 0438C (APPLICANT) Vs ACIT Central Circle-01 E-2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110 055 (RESPONDENT) Applicant by Ms. Sweta Bansal, CA Respondent by Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date of Pronouncement 14/05/2024 2 MA Nos. 140 & 141/Del/2024 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT ORDER SH. YOGESH KUAMR U.S., JM Both these present Miscellaneous Applications the assessee sought for rectification of order of the Tribunal dated 29/03/2024 in ITA Nos. 67/Del/2021 & 68/Del/2021. . 2. It is brought to the notice of the Bench that while deciding the main Appeal Ground No. 3 in ITA No. 67/Del/2021 and also in Ground No. 3 in ITA No. 68/Del/2021, the Tribunal has not given any findings and also the decision, though the respective parties have addressed the arguments therefore, sought for correcting the error apparent from record. 3. Considering the fact that the Assessee's Representative and also the the Departmental Representative have advanced argument on Ground No. 3 in both ITA Nos. 67 & 68/Del/2021, we deem it fit to issue the following Corrigendum to the order of the Tribunal which shall be treated as part and parcel of the order of the Tribunal dated 29/02/2024 and shall be read after paragraph 5 of the order of the Tribunal. CORRIGENDUM in ITA No. 67/Del/2021 ( A.Y 2016-17) ‘5a. In the Assessment Year 2016-17, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 28,40,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposit in bank account. It is the case of the assessee that the source of the cash deposit was opening cash of Rs. 2,88,903/-, net profit from boutique business offered by the assessee in her income tax return was Rs. 9,52,464/- and gift of Rs. 17,40,000/- received from the husband of the assessee. The Assessee's Representative submitted that the authorities below have committed error in not considering the explanation provided by the Assessee thus, sought for deletion of the said addition by allowing the Ground No. 3 of the Assessee’s Appeal. 3 MA Nos. 140 & 141/Del/2024 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT 5b. Per contra, the Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Ground No. 3 of the Assessee. 5c. Heard and perused. It is submitted that as on 01/04/2015, it can be seen that the Assessee had opening cash of Rs. 2,88,903/- which can be corroborated with the submission of the Assessee produced at Page No. 74 of the Paper Book and the said explanation/cash was a duly accepted by Ld. CIT(A) as in AY 2015- 16, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on account of cash deposit in bank account on the basis of sources of cash explained in AY 2015- 16 through income from boutique. As the source of cash receipts and cash deposits in AY 2015-16 duly accepted by the Ld. CIT(A), the opening cash balance as on 01/04/2015 stands duly explained and accepted. Further it is the case of the Assessee that the assessee was engaged in the business of running a boutique. From such boutique the Assessee offered net income of Rs. 9,52,464/-, which has been deposited by the Assessee in her bank account. A chart showing summary of cash submitted before the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced at page 110 of paper book before us. The said source of cash deposit was duly accepted by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2012-13 and AY 2015-16. In the year under consideration, the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the receipts from boutique as source of cash deposit on the ground that evidence of said receipts were filed by the 4 MA Nos. 140 & 141/Del/2024 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT Assessee. In response it was submitted that the Assessee was running small boutique at her residence only and was not maintaining any books of account. Therefore, no such evidence for receipts from the boutique is available with the Assessee. There is no dispute that the said receipts were duly offered to tax by the Assessee in her income tax return and duly accepted by the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in our considered view, the observation of the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) are self-contradictory and the source of cash deposit in bank account to the extent of Rs. Rs. 9,52,464/- deserves to be treated as duly explained with the net profit from the boutique business offered to tax by the Assessee in her income tax return for the year under consideration. 5d. Further, in so far as Gift of Rs. 17,40,000/- received from her husband Sh. Naveen Sachdeva, the Assessee submitted a copy of the gift deed dt. 01/04/2015 before the Ld. AO vide letter dt. Nil enclosed which has not been considered by the Ld. AO. and the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that original gift deed was not furnished. The said gift of Rs. 17,40,000/- was duly recorded in the cash book of Sh. Naveen Sachdeva which was a part of the fund flow submitted by Sh. Naveen Sachdeva before Hon'ble Settlement commission. Fund flow statement for AY 2016-17 was duly examined/assessed and accepted by Hon'ble Settlement commission. Therefore, the source of the said 5 MA Nos. 140 & 141/Del/2024 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT gift of Rs. 17,40,000/- stands explained. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Ld. A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) have committed error in making and sustaining the addition of Rs. 28,40,000/- accordingly, the same is deleted by allowing the Ground No. 3 of the Assessee in ITA No. 67/Del/2021.” CORRIGENDUM in ITA No. 68/Del/2021 ( A.Y 2017-18) 5e. In the Assessment Year 2017-18, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 7,80,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposit in bank account. The Assessee gave explanation before the Authorities that the source of the said cash deposit was withdrawal from bank amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/-. The cash withdrawals were duly appearing in the bank account statement of the Assessee, the Assessee has also provided the chart showing summary of cash before the A.O. Considering the amount of cash withdrawal and the amount of re-deposit, we take the support of following judicial precedent to draw the conclusion wherein it is held that where there were sufficient cash withdrawals to cover cash deposits in question, addition on account of cash deposit could not be made:- ACIT Vs. Baldev Raj Chalra; [2009] 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai in 291 ITR 36(Delhi High Court) NEETA BREJA Vs. ITO Appeal No. 524 (Delhi) 2017, dated 25/11/2019 Anupama Chaudhary Vs. ITO; ITA No. 4155 (Del)/2009; dated 27/12/2010 6 MA Nos. 140 & 141/Del/2024 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT 5f. In the present case, the cash withdrawals were sufficient to explain the cash deposit in question, in view of the settled position of law, the authorities should have accepted explanation of the Assessee and addition on account of cash deposit could not have been made. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 7,80,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposit in bank account of the Assessee is hereby deleted and the Ground No. 3 of the Assessee in ITA No. 68/Del/2021 is allowed.” 4. The above corrigendum shall be part and parcel of the order dated 29/02/2024 of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous Application filed by the Assessee is disposed off. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14 th MAY, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. B. R.R. KUMAR) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 14/05/2024 R. N, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 7 MA Nos. 140 & 141/Del/2024 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT