ITO, Panipat v. Shri Balijinder Singh Saggu, Panipat

ITA 4281/DEL/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 428120114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AWTPS2435E
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4281/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Panipat
Respondent Shri Balijinder Singh Saggu, Panipat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 18-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 18-07-2013
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 26-09-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.D. JAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4281/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ITO WARD-1 PANIPAT. VS. BALIJINDER SINGH SAGGU C/O SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SONS G.T. ROAD PANIPAT. PAN : AWTPS2435E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI BHIM SINGH SR.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2011 PASSED BY T HE CIT (A) KARNAL TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO RESTRICT THE ADDITI ON OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN A/C NO.121601000013100 WITH CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK A MOUNT OF DEPOSITS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.21 39 936/- AND ALSO PURPOSE OF EACH WITHDRAWAL IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE ASSTT. PROCEEDINGS. 2. NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WHICH HAS NOT RETURNED UNSERVED. H OWEVER FINDING THAT THE MATTER CAN BE PROCEEDED WITH IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND WE ARE PROCEEDING TO D ISPOSE OF THE MATTER. ITA NO.4281/DEL/2011 2 3. THE FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE NOTICE U/S 142 (1) OF THE IT ACT INTER ALIA TO FURNISH COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH NARRATION OF DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES. IN THE REPLY FILED THE ASSESSEE RESPONDED TO ALL THE QU ERIES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT TO THAT WITH REGARD TO THE MAINT ENANCE OF BANK ACCOUNT. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO FURNISH THE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS OF THE SAID R EMAINING QUERY. IN REPLY DATED 08.07.2010 THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN MAINTAINING ANY BANK ACCOUNT WITH ANY BANK AND HENCE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH NARRATION OF DEBIT AND CR EDIT ENTRIES COULD NOT BE PRESENTED. FURTHER IN THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 14.10.2010 THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DENIED AN Y DEPOSIT MADE IN ANY BANK AND HE HAD STATED THAT HE HAD NEVER MAINTAINED ANY BANK ACCOUNT IN HIS WHOLE LIFE. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT OR DER THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE ASSESSEE HAVING MA INTAINED A SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT IN HDFC BANK S.D. SCHOOL EXTE NSION COUNTER PANIPAT. A COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WA S GOT COLLECTED FROM THE BANK AND CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 11.11.2010. NO REPLY TO THIS LETTER WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FA ILED TO CLARIFY THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT OF ` 21 39 936/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF THE ASSESSEE A ND WAS BEING ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT (A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS. AGGRIEVED THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. DR HAS CO NTENDED THAT WHILE WRONGLY DIRECTING RESTRICTION OF THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH ITA NO.4281/DEL/2011 3 DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REMAINED UNS UCCESSFUL IN EXPLAINING CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO ` 21 39 936/- AS ALSO THE PURPOSE OF EACH WITHDRAWAL IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; THAT THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD CORRECTLY ADDED THE WHOLE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CAS H DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT; AND THAT THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BE CANCELLED AND THAT PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER BE REVIVED ON ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEP ARTMENT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPOSITING AND WITHDRA WING CASH FROM HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK (ERSTW HILE CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB) AT PANIPAT. THE ADDITION HOWEVER WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLA IN THE DEPOSIT OF ` 21 39 936/-. IN THIS REGARD IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT MERELY BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWAL S THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TAKEN TO HAVE INCOME EQUIVALENT TO T HE TOTAL AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. EVEN WHERE TH E CREDIT AND DEBIT ENTRIES REMAINED UNEXPLAINED THE FUNDS OF THE ACCOUNT ARE TO BE TAKEN AS ONE AND THE SAME AND ONLY THE PEAK OF THE AM OUNTS IN THE ACCOUNT NEED TO BE TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT SO AS TO AVOID MULTIPLE COUNTING OF THE SAME SUMS. NOW AS NOTED BY T HE LD. CIT (A) THE WITHDRAWAL DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR FOR MEETING VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD AND PERSONAL EXPENSE WAS OF ` 30 000/- ONLY. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR W AS DERIVING INCOME FROM TRADING AND REPAIR OF MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. HE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED TO BE A HIGH EARNING INDIVIDUAL. IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN AS TO HOW HIS HOUSEHOLD AND PERSONAL EXPENSES INCLU DING EXPENSES OF HIS FAMILY FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR AT ` 30 000/- COULD BE ITA NO.4281/DEL/2011 4 ADEQUATE. HENCE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CORRECTLY HEL D THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WOULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN THE INCURRENCE OF VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD AND PERSONAL EXPENSES OF SELF AND OF FAMILY FOR THE YEAR. 7. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW AS TO HOW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE RESTRICTION OF THE ADDITION TO THE PEAK OF THE WITHDRAWALS/DEPOSITS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR HOL DING THAT CREDIT OF OPENING CASH IN HAND AND OF THE INCOME EAR NED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WERE NOT TO BE ALLOWED. THER EFORE FINDING NO MERIT THEREIN THE GRIEVANCE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED B Y THE DEPARTMENT IS REJECTED AND FINDING NO ERROR THEREIN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.07.20 13. SD/- SD/- [G.D. AGRAWAL] [A.D. JAIN] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 31.07.2013. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES