Shri Bhupendra Singh Rathore, Greater Noida v. ACIT, Noida

ITA 2511/DEL/2016 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 251120114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AEYPR0856D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2511/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant Shri Bhupendra Singh Rathore, Greater Noida
Respondent ACIT, Noida
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC 2
Tribunal Order Date 25-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 22-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 22-09-2016
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 05-05-2016
Judgment 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. 2511/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2011-12 BHUPENDRA SINGH RATHORE A-303 ASHIANA ORCHID GAMMA-II GREATER NOIDA (UP) (PAN: AEYPR0856D) VS. ACIT CIRCLE-3 NOIDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. N.S. BHATNAGAR ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. UMESH CHANDER DUBEY SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 22-09-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 25-10-2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I NOIDA DATE D 29.2.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND REJECTED THE APPEAL M ERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO BY REJECTING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HI M. HE 2 FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IN TERMS OF THE AFFI DAVIT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND HELD B Y SMT. RITA CHAWAN AFFIDAVITS FILED BEFORE GUN UN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THR APPELLANT AS BOGUS WITHOUT ANY REASON AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SAME. 3. THAT THE LD AO ERRED IN LAW IN READING THE ALLEG ED LETTER DATED 25.3.2014 OUT OF CONTEXT AND ARRIVING AT WRO NG CONCLUSION. 4. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 50 000/- MADE TO THE RETURN INCOME IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. THE ADDITION DE SERVES TO BE DELETED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD AM END SUPPLEMENT GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN SUPPORT OF HIS PLEA DINGS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AO PASSED A N ORDER DATED 29.3.2014 FOR THE AY 2010-11 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 16 29 3 00/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 14 24 300/-. AO OBSERVED THAT THE C ASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 25 000/- A ND RS. 1 80 000/- WERE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS ADDED T HE SAME TO ITS TOTAL INCOME LIABLE TO TAX. THE AO REJECTED THE AFFIDAVITS SUB MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THAT THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS WERE MONEY ADVANCED BY SH. MAHINDER SINGH AND SMT. RITA CHOUHAN AS THE AO FOUND THAT THE SIGNATU RE ON THE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MATCH WITH THE SAME ON THE PAN CARD AND THE ASSESSE E EXPRESSED ITS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE BANK PASS BOOKS OF THE LENDERS. IN V IEW OF THIS THE AO HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUFFI CIENT AND THE AMOUNT 3 DEPOSITED IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT WAS ITS UNACCOUNTED I NCOME AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE LIABLE TO TAX. AGG RIEVED WITH THE SAME ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGN ED ORDER DATED 29.2.2016 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITIO N AND CONFIRMING THE SAME BY REJECTING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. HE FU RTHER STATED THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IN TERMS OF THE AF FIDAVIT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OF AGRICULTURE LAND HELD BY SMT. RITA C HAWHAN AFFIDAVITS FILED BEFORE HIM IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE AS BOGUS WITHOUT ANY REASON AND JUSTIFIED FOR THE SAME. HENCE HE REQUE STED THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH RELEVANT RECORDS AVAI LABLE WITH US. I FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE HAVING SALARY AS PR IME SOURCE OF INCOME. IN ADDITION TO THE SALARY INCOME HE HAD INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2 05 000/- (RS. 1 80 000 & RS. 2 5 000). THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE SUPPORTED THE EVIDENCE 4 AND THE CAPACITY OF THE DEPOSITORS BY WAY OF FILING THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE OF SMT. RITA CHAWAN AND SH. MAHINDER SINGH COPY OF ACKNO WLEDGE OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR AY 2010-11 PAN CARD AND AADHAR CARD. I HAVE PERUSED THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY PROVED ITS BURDEN AND DISCHARGED THE ONUS UPON TH E DEPARTMENT HOWEVER NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE WAS SHOWN BY THE AO WHICH WILL P ROVE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY UNWARRANTED AND THE SAME NEED S TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY I DELETE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. MY AFORESAID VIEW IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISION : CIT V. KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. SLP (CC) NO. 15640 OF 2012 DATED 17-09-2012 (SUPREME COURT) ISSUE INVOLVED: 'WHETHER ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISC HARGED THE INITIAL BURDEN BY FILING ADEQUATE EVIDENCE/MATERIAL REVENUE IS SUPPOSED TO DISLODGE THE INITIAL BURDEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO THROW THE BALL AGAIN IN THE ASSESSEE'S' COUR T DEMANDING THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE SOME MORE PROOFS AS THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED EARLIER BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BECOME SUSPECT OR AR E RENDERED INSUFFICIENT IN VIEW OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BY TH E DEPARTMENT REBUTTING THE ASSESSEE'S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE?' DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF : ASSESSEE HELD: THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS DISMISSED THE S PECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT V. KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLO YS LTD. 5 [2014] 361 ITR 220 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD: CASH CREDITS-- UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS--BURDEN OF PROOF--SHARE APP LICATION MONEY--ASSESSEE EXPLAINING SOURCE' OF MONEY-IDENTIT IES OF APPLICANTS AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS ESTABLISHED-- BURDEN OF PROOF DISCHARGED BY ASSESSEE--ONUS SHIFTED TO DEPARTMENT- -NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE--SECTIONS 68 AND 69 NOT APPLICABLE--INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 SS. 68 69: 7. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS A ND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT I DELET E THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/10/2016 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 25/10/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1.APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES