Sangeeta Goyal, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4227/DEL/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 422720114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ADPPG7309A
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4227/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant Sangeeta Goyal, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 29-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 29-11-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 30-10-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA ITA NO. 4227/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SANGEETA GOYAL VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER M-90 GREATER KAILASH-2 WARD 23(2) NEW DELHI. (PAN: ADPPG7309A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: MS. INDRA BANS AL CA RESPONDENT BY: MS. S. MOHANTY D R DATE OF HEARING : 29.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.11.2011 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN GROUND NO.1 ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT LEARNED CIT( APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LACS. THE BRIEF FAC TS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 25 TH OCTOBER 2006 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR S CRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 196 1 WAS ISSUED. ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS IT REVEALED TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED A SUM OF RS.20 LACS IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT. ASSESSING OFFICER INQUIRED ABOUT THE NATURE OF THIS ENTRY. 2 IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS ENTRY REPRESENTS ADVAN CE AGAINST SALE OF DARIS. BUT ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION COULD NO T BE MATERIALIZED THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE SUSPENSE ACCOUN T. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY DETAIL AND ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDI TION. APPEAL TO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION OR ANY MATERIAL ON THIS ISSUE HE NCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED AND ADDITION OF RS.20 LACS IS CONFIRMED . 2. IN GROUND NO.2 ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT LEARNE D CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.46 50 000 AS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT 1961. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATI ON UNDER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES FOR PERMISSION TO LEAD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.46 50 0 00 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB LTD. ASSES SING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND SOURCE OF DEPOSITS ETC. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASS ESSEE THAT THESE AMOUNTS 3 WERE DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENT DATES OUT OF CASH IN HA NDS AVAILABLE. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THE DETAILS OF DEPOSITS ON PAGE NOS . 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HOWEVER HE MADE THE ADDITION UND ER SECTION 68 ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND OTHER EVIDENCE EXHIBITING THE SOURCE OF FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH HER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER CAL LED THESE DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR PERMI SSION TO LEAD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES 1962. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNS EL ASSESSEE HAS A COMPLETE RECONCILIATION OF THE AMOUNTS EARLIER WITH DRAWN FROM DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE AVAILABLE WITH HER AND OUT OF W HICH SHE MADE THE DEPOSITS. ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLAC ED ON RECORD A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 19 PAGES WHEREIN DETAILS OF VARIOUS BAN K STATEMENTS AND AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO BE PLACED ON RECORD. SHE FURT HER CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION O F THE ASSESSEE FOR PERMISSION TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE GRO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL IN ANY OF THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDE R CLAUSES (A) TO (D) OF SUB- RULE(1) OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES 1962. SHE PRAYED THAT THE EVIDENCE BE TAKEN ON RECORD AND MATTER BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DR RE LIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SHE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. SHE TOOK US THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 3 . 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. ON 23 RD JUNE 2008 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONFRONTED THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ABOUT A REPORT REC EIVED FROM ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT WING SHOWING CASH DEPOSITS OF RS .46 50 000. THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 30.6.2008. ON THIS DATE THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED PART DETAILS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREDIT ENTRY OF RS.2 0 LACS. THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 9 TH JULY 2008 AND ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE SOURCE O F CASH DEPOSITS IN RESPECT OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AI R WING. THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 17 TH JULY 2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS EX HIBITING THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB L TD. ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. ON 5.11.2008 ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 10.11.2008. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 10.11.2008 NO ONE APPEARED AND HE PROCEEDS TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.46 50 000 BECAUSE HE HAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. I N THE APPLICATION THE 5 ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE PLA CED BY HER IS A NECESSARY MATERIAL FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE APPEAL. NO DO UBT FROM PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE FAILED T O PRODUCE THE REQUISITE DETAILS BUT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TIME GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SUBMISSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE WAS TOO SHORT. IT WAS J UST FIVE DAYS. THE ASSESSEE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO COLLECT THE DETAILS F ROM DIFFERENT BANKS AND PREPARED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT DEMONSTRATING THE WITHDRAWALS AS WELL AS DEPOSITS MADE FROM THE BANKS. CONSIDERING THE NA TURE OF ADDITION AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WE DEEM IT FIT THAT IN STEAD OF CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL REASONS IT IS APP ROPRIATE TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT MATER IAL. THEREFORE WE TAKE THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBE RTY TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE US IN THE PAPER BOOK BEFORE THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY US WILL NOT IMPAIR OR INJURE THE CASE OF A.O. OR WOULD NOT CAUSE ANY PREJ UDICE TO THE DEFENCE/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN. SD/- SD/- ( A.N. PAHUJA ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29/11/2011 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR