PRAVEEN GUPTA,DELHI V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-35, DELHI

ITA 491/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Parveen Gupta against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) which confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000 as unexplained money under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amount was part of cash released to the appellant by a court order, which the CIT(A) treated as solely belonging to the appellant, ignoring the fact that it was to be shared among four claimants. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the appellant's submissions and the documentary evidence, leading to the decision to restore the matter for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474614 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Assessee Lawyers: RANO JAIN; NOT
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.491/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parveen Gupta, E-2/97, 98, Sector 16, ROHINI, Delhi, PIN: 1100 89 PAN No. AMKPG9561C Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-35, Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Suman Malik, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 ORDER Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal)-30, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)” which is arising out of the assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed under Sections 143(3)/153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’] in respect of the assessment year 2017-18. 2 ITA No.491/Del/2022 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as follows: 1. Because the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the high pitched, arbitrary and excessive additions made by the AO, of a sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- being the amount of cash released to the appellant by Hon'ble Court thereby treating the same as pertaining to the appellant only instead of total four claimants of the said cash so released, thereby ignoring the facts of the case file and submissions of the appellant before the Hon'ble Court/Police Authorities. 2. Because the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO confirming the additions made by the AO stating that the appellant has created a story only after Investigating Officer started enquiring about the source of cash & evidence thereof and finally opined/taken a view (opinion of the CIT - Appeal) that the cash released by the Hon'ble Court pertained to the appellant only. 3. Because the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO thereby confirming the addition of a sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- having opined that the appellant could not explain the source of cash to the Assessing Officer and hence the addition, totally ignoring the facts of the case and documents submitted. 4. Because the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the AO thereby confirming the additions made by the AO in haste stating that the documents submitted by the appellant explaining the source of cash in hands of four (instead of three) other parties found to be un- acceptable that too without furnishing any evidence of the source of cash in each case thereby totally ignoring the plethora of documents submitted by the appellant. 5. Confirming the said additions made by the Learned CIT (A) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts and unwarranted. 6. That the appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend or vary and or withdraw any or all of the aforesaid grounds of appeal or at time of hearing of the above appeal. 3 ITA No.491/Del/2022 3. The sole issue challenged all the grounds of appeal inter- related pertains to confirmation of the addition of a sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act treating as unexplained money. 4. Having heard both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed a sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act treating as unexplained money rejecting the contention of the assessee by not appreciating merits of the case as he appears to ignored the true facts of the case and documents submitted by the assessee while holding that the appellant could not explain the source of cash to the AO. 5. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/-, the amount of cash released to the appellant by Hon'ble Court being treated as pertaining to the appellant only ignoring the facts of the case file and submissions of the appellant before the Hon'ble Court/Police Authorities that the disputed cash pertains to the four claimants of the said cash so released. During demonetization, the appellant as well as his other three acquaintances, namely Sh. Abhay Kumar Das, M/S ELS Lumanaries and M/S Frames Twenty-Four Communications Private Limited, were to deposit the old high denomination currency notes amounting to Rs. 1.16 crore. 6. It is noted that Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO stating that the appellant has created a story only after Investigating Officer 4 ITA No.491/Del/2022 started enquiring about the source of cash and evidence thereof taken a view that the cash released by the Hon'ble Court pertained to the appellant only by observing that the appellant could not explain the source of cash deposit amounting to Rs. 1,05,00,000/- ignoring the facts of the case and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. 7. From the record, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the additions made by the AO in haste stating that the documents submitted by the appellant explaining the source of cash in hands of four found to be un- acceptable that too without furnishing any evidence of the source of cash in each case thereby totally ignored the plethora of documents submitted by the appellant as referred in the proceedings. 8. The Ld. AR submitted that the appellant and his other acquaintances, in order to avoid any mishappening or loot due to huge crowd (queue of few kilometres at times) outside each and every bank branch in the country by the members of public at large from early morning (say about 4:00 clock or even earlier) in order to get a chance to be inside the bank branch for deposit of the old high denomination currency notes, met Sh. Pushpinder Khari, who assured the appellant and his other acquaintances to deposit the old currency of the appellant and his other acquaintances without being in the que through his certain resources in the bank. On being convinced by 5 ITA No.491/Del/2022 Sh. Pushpinder Khari, the appellant and his acquaintances finally decided to hand over the old high denomination currency notes (collective old currency of four persons/entities) so that the same be deposited by Sh. Pushpinder Khari to the newly opened respective accounts of all the four persons/entities with Rampura, Trinagar branch of Punjab National Bank. Sh. Pushpinder Khari cheated the appellant and his acquaintances and run away with Rs. 1.16 crore (old high denomination currency notes) and that on being cheated the appellant and his acquaintances (referred to as appellant herein after), approached police authorities for registering an FIR against the said Sh. Pushpinder Khari and to their utmost surprise, there were other FIRS against Sh. Pushpinder Khari for having cheated others as well in the similar fashion. 9. It is observed that the police authorities instead of registering a separate FIR in the matter, clubbed the appellate case also with the existing FIR registered against Sh. Pushpinder Khari vide FIR No. 0764/2016 of Kapil Mehta with Police Station Keshav Puram. It is also pertinent to mention here that one another such matter of Sh. Jatinder Mohan Singh was also clubbed in the said FIR of Kapil Mehta. The police authorities recovered a sum of Rs. 3,51,70,000/- (old currency) during their investigation belonging to various complainants including the appellant. 6 ITA No.491/Del/2022 Thereafter the appellant moved an application about cheating, fraud, threat and release of the money recovered by the Police Authorities, which ultimately reached the Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi for trial. 10. The Hon'ble Court having heard all the parties including the officials (Sh. Brijesh Garg, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for Income Tax Department along with inspector from income tax department) of income tax authorities present, passed an order to release the cash so recovered amounting to Rs. Rs. 1.05 crore in favour of the victim, Sh. Praveen Gupta, on 24.12.2016. The Ld. AR explained that out of the total amount of Rs. 3,51,70,000/seized by the police authorities, the Hon'ble court after having heard all the parties including the income tax department also released a sum of Rs. 46,70,000/- to Sh. Jatinder Mohan Singh vide another order dated 24.12.2016 and Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was released to Sh. Kapil Mehta vide order dated 03.12.2016. 12. That the relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 24.12.2016 (copy attached - Page No. 99) releasing the above said amount to various parties to the matter is being produced hereunder for your ready reference: \"In reply, 10 Insp. Ram Manohar, Special Staff, North West, Delhi has stated that in the present case, the complainant Mr. Kapil Mehta had alleged that he was duped of Rs. 2.00 crore by Pushpinder Khari, who made false promise of 7 ITA No.491/Del/2022 depositing his money by opening his new account in PNB bank in criminal conspiracy with Hemant Mishra and other persons through whom he had met with Pushpinder Khari. He further alleged that Pushpinder Khari impersonated as Lalit Verma and misrepresented and boasted about his relation with bank officials. It is further stated in the reply that on 29.11.2016, the complete cheated amount of Rs. 2.00 crores has been recovered. It is also stated that in addition to this, cash of more than Rs. 1.50 crores was recovered which the accused possessed by cheating other persons and the accused had disclosed about cheating committed against several persons including the complainant Kapil Mehta and other persons namely Praveen Kumar and Others. 10 has further stated in the reply that the parties have settled the matter in the court andfiled a compromise deed in the Sessions Court, Rohini on 08.122016. It is also stated by the 10 that the complainant is yet to provide the details ofsource of claimed money that is Rs. 1 crore 5 lacs, hence some time is required for completion of the investigation in this regard. It is also stated that the intimation regarding recovered money has been sent to the income tax office as well as enforcement directorate office. \" 13. It is pertinent to mention here that thus, the assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 1.05 crore released as above by the Hon'ble Court in favour of the appellant and his acquaintances and not in favour of the appellant only. This can be also verified from 2nd notice under section 91 read with 160 Cr. PC issued by 10/1nspector Sh. Ram Manohar, Special Staff, Delhi Police, North West District dated 09.12.2016 (copy attached Page No. 62) to the appellant wherein it has been categorically asked the appellant to provide details of name, address, mobile numbers and income tax returns of 8 ITA No.491/Del/2022 last five years of all the individuals from whom the appellant has sourced the money to be so deposited/handed over to Pushpinder Khari in the matter. 14. The Ld. AR contended that the income tax department, through Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for Income Tax/ Inspector of Income Tax, who participated in the court proceedings, is aware of the above fact that the amount of Rs. 1.05 crore so released by the court belong to four persons/entities and only an amount of Rs. 18.00 lacs belong to the appellant may be verified, in case so desired. 16. Considering the factual matrix of the case, we consider it deem fit to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to examine the veracity of the documentary evidence, the court order to the effect of cash released in favour of the assessee and his acquaintances who owned the share of the cash so released by the court and deposited in the assessee’s aforesaid bank account. The Ld. CIT (A) shall adjudicate the matter afresh on merits of the case after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the relevant material available on record or may be filed in the fresh proceedings by the assessee. Needless to say that the assessee shall cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) in compliance with the notices issued by the authority. 9 ITA No.491/Del/2022 17. Without prejudice to the above, we make it clear that we have expressed no view on merits of the case, and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to take independent decision without being influenced by any of our observation given herein above. 18. In the above view, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Order pronounced on 21/03/2025 in accordance with the Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Mohan Lal* Dated: 21.03.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "