Naresh Kumar Yadav, Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1483/DEL/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 148320114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AXQPK8006P
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1483/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Naresh Kumar Yadav, Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 15-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 15-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 15-03-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 06-04-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1483/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHRI NARESH KUMAR YADAV VS. ITO WARD 19 (4) 59 NARELA ROAD NEW DELHI. VILLAGE & P.O. BAWANA DELHI 110 039. (PAN : AXQPK8006P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY WADHWA CA REVENUE BY : SHRI PEEYUSH SONKAR SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)- XXII NEW DELHI DATED 01.02.2010. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) DATED 1.02.2010 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECT ING THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE APPELLANT EXPLAINING TH E NATURE AND SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.10 LACS IN SAVING BANK ACCO UNT WITH SBI. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN AGREEI NG WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SUBMITTED CONTRADICTORY REMAN D REPORTS REGARDING NATURE AND SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN APPELLANT S SAVING ACCOUNT WITH SBI. ITA NO.1483/DEL./2011 2 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOW THE REL IEF AS THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.10 LACS WAS SATI SFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF H EARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER U/S 144/1 42(1) OF INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ON 24.12.2007. THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION. AS PER THE INFORMATION THE AS SESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.10 LACS IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT KEPT WITH THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE. 3. IN THE APPEAL THE CIT (A) CALLED A REMAND REPOR T FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATION THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE CASH ON THE PRE-MATURE ENCASHMENT OF FDR TO THE TUNE OF RS.7 04 400/- IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 26.3.20 09 THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED COMPENSATION CHEQUE FROM THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR OF RS.21 76 741/-. THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE INSTRUCTED THE BANK TO MAKE FDR WORTH OF RS.18 50 000/- IN VAR IOUS NAMES. OUT OF THIS ONE OF THE FDR OF RS.7 LACS WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF T HE ASSESSEE FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THIS FDR WAS PREMATURELY ENCASHED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON 24.3.2003 FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.7 04 40 0/- AND THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REPORTED TH AT THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS INTO ASSESSEES SB ACCOUNT W ERE THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH OUT OF THIS ACCOUNT. THE CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION BY TREATING THE DEPOSIT OF ITA NO.1483/DEL./2011 3 RS.10 LACS AS UNEXPLAINABLE BY NOT BELIEVING THE AS SESSEES CONTENTION THAT HE HAS RECEIVED CASH OF RS.7 04 400/- ON ENCASHMENT OF FDR . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPORTED IN THE SECOND REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE WITHDRA WALS. IN THE FIRST REMAND REPORT DATED 2.4.2008 THE TIME GAP BETWEEN DEPOSIT AND WI THDRAWAL HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR NOT EXPLAINING THE SOURCE. THE CIT (A) FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY CONTRADICTORY FACTS IN RESPECT OF TIME GAP REGARDIN G THE NON-AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS TO DEPOSIT THE SAME IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNT. NO FINDING IN RESPECT OF UTILIZATION OF THE CASH WITHDRAWAL FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAN THE DEPO SITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. KEEPING IN VIEW T HE AFORESAID FACTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE D E NOVO AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF MARCH 2011 AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 15 TH DAY OF MARCH 2011/TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A) GHAZIABAD. 5.CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR ITAT NEW DELHI.