Sh Rajiv Bansal Through L H Priti Bansal Haryana v. Ito Gurgaon

ITA 6904/DEL/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

Note: Please login to view full details
RSA Number 690420114 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN xxxxxxxxxxx
Bench xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Number xxxxxxxxxxx
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant xxxxxxxxxxx
Respondent xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 12-12-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 12-12-2017
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 22-12-2014
Judgment Text
1 Ita No 6904 Del 2014 In The Income Tax Appella Te Tribunal Delhi Bench F New Delhi Before Shri G D Agrawal Preside Nt And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg Ju Dicial Member I T A No 6904 Del 2 014 A Y 2009 10 Rajiv Bansal Through L H Priti Bansal New Anaj Mandi Tauru Mewat Haryana Aiipb 3912 E Appellant Vs Ito Ward 1 1 Gurgaon Respondent Appellant By Sh Gautam Jain Adv Respondent By Sh Atiq Ahmad Sr Dr Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg Judicial Member This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Legal Heir Of The Deceased Assesse Against The Order Of The Cit A 2 Faridabad Dated 16 10 2014 For Assessment Year 2009 10 2 However The Assessee Has Raised As Many As Five Grounds In This Appeal But Except Ground No 2 Other Grounds Are A Rgumentative And Supported To The Main Ground No 2 Which Reads As F Ollows Date Of Hearing 12 12 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 12 12 2017 2 Ita No 6904 Del 2014 2 On Facts And In Law The Cit A Has Grossly Err Ed In Holding The Addition Of Rs 84 90 000 By The Ld A O On Accoun T Of Cash Deposited In The Bank Account In An Envisaged Manner Without Considering Facts Of The Case And Documents Submitte D By The Appellant And Without Any Cogent Evidence 3 We Have Heard Of Both The Arguments From Both Si Des And Carefully Perused The Material Placed On Record Of The Tribun Al Inter Alia Impugned Assessment And First Appellate Order Along With Paper Book Filed By The Assessee Spread Over 56 Pages 4 The Ld Counsel Of The Assessee Submitted That T He A O Proceeded To Make Addition On Account Of Cash Deposited In Th E Bank Account Without Considering The Facts Of The Case And Docum Ents Submitted By The Appellant Before Him Without Any Cogent Adverse Evidence Against The Assessee The Ld Counsel Vehemently Pointed Out T Hat The Ld Cit A Has Also Erred In Dismissing The Submissions Made A Nd The Documents Submitted By The Appellant And Passing The Order Wi Thout Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assess Ee The Ld Counsel Also Submitted That The First Appellate Authority Ha S Made A Mistake In 3 Ita No 6904 Del 2014 Confirming The Order Of The A O Without Any Justifi Cation By Ignoring The Remand Report Dated 23 7 2014 Of The A O 5 Replying To The Above The Ld Departmental Repr Esentative Strongly Supported The Action Of The A O As Well As First Appellate Order And Submitted That The Submissions Of The Assessee Are Not Supported By Books Of Accounts Any Relevant Bills Vouchers The Refore The A O Had No Alternate But To Make Addition Which Was Correct Ly Confirmed By The Ld Cit A 6 Placing Rejoinder Of The Above Submissions The L D Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Since The Assessee Shri Raj Iv Bansal Has Expired And The Wife Deceased Assessee Was Not Able To Subm It Books Of Accounts Of The Assessee But From The Cash Flow Chart Submit Ted By The Assessee Before The Authorities Below Placed At Pages 30 To 33 Of The Assessees Paper Book Clearly Show That The Source Of Impugned Amount Was Properly Explained By The Assessee As There Was Cor Responding Deposit Withdrawal Entry In The Bank Account With R Espect To The Withdrawal Deposit Entry To The Saving Account Of T He Assessee And Cash Flow Statement Also Confirm The Same Facts 4 Ita No 6904 Del 2014 7 The Ld Ar Submitted That Merely Because Due To The Death Of The Assessee His Wife Could Not Submit Books Of Account S And Other Relevant Documents The Addition On The Basis Of Cash Deposit S Cannot Be Made And Confirm The Ld Counsel Of The Assessee Also Drew Our Attention Towards Para 2 Of The Remand Report Dated 23 7 2014 Paper Book Page 40 41 And Submitted That Merely Because Wife Of The Deceased Assessee Could Not Explain The Logic Of Making Cash Withdraw Als From One Bank And Making Cash Deposits To The Another Cannot Be T Aken As On Basis For Making Addition Specially When The Withdrawals And Deposits Are Being Confirmed And Explained With The Withdrawals Made B Y The Assessee From One Account And The Same Amount Was Deposited To The Another Bank Account Of The Assessee 8 On Careful Consideration Of Our Rival Submission S From Para 2 Of The Remand Report Dated 23 7 2014 We Observe That T He A O Submitted The Following Remand Report To The Ld Cit A Read A S Under Perusal Of Cash Flow Statement Dated 4 7 2014 Submi Tted Before The Undersigned Further Revealed That There Was Corr Esponding Deposit Withdrawal Entry Into His Current Bank Accoun T With Respect To Withdrawal Deposit Entry Into His Saving Bank Acco Unt The Cash Flow Statement Submitted Now With Bank Account Stat Ement 5 Ita No 6904 Del 2014 However The Submission Of The Assessee Is Not Supp Orted By Books Of Accounts Any Bills Vouchers It Is Not Explain Ed The Logic Of Making Cash Withdrawals From One Bank And Making Cas H Deposits Into Another Therefore The Submissions Of The As Sessee Remaining Without Any Supporting Evidence 9 In View Of Our Remand Report We Observe That Th E A O Has Not Controverting And Disputed The Factum Of Withdrawa L From One Account And Deposit Of The Same Amount To Another Bank Acco Unt Of The Assessee Which Clearly Explains The Source Of Cash Deposit Made By The Assessee Which Was Picked Up By The A O For Making Addition It Is A Peculiar Fact Of Present Case That The Assessee Has Expired And H Is Wife Is Pressing Dying The Litigation Before The Taxation Authoritie S On Behalf Of Her Deceased Husband Despite The Fact That The Author Ities Below Could Not Dispute The Explanation Submitted On Behalf Of The Assessee That The Assessee Withdrew Amount From One Bank Account And The Same Amount Was Deposited Of The Another Account The A O Alle Ged That The Assessee Could Not Submit Books Of Accounts And Relevant Bil Ls Vouchers It Is Very Strange That In A Case Of Deceased Assessee Th E A O Has Expecting Her Wife To Submit Books Of Account Which Is Not Pr Actically Possible However Be That As It May When By Submitting State Ment Of Cash Flow 6 Ita No 6904 Del 2014 And Copies Of Bank Accounts Of The Assessee The W Ife Of Deceased Assessee Is Successfully Establishing The Fact That The Amount Was Withdrawn By From One Account And The Same Account As Deposited To Another Account Within A Few Days Then The Expectat Ion Of Submit Bills And Vouchers Is Not Only Irrelevant But Also Conce Ived In This Situation The Explanation Submitted By The Wife Of The Deceas Ed Assessee Could Have Been Accepted By The Authorities Below But The Y Have Failed Failed To Do So 10 In View Of The Aforegoing Discussion We Arrive To A Logical Conclusion That The Addition Made By The A O Was No T Correct And Justified And The Ld Cit A Was Not Correct In Upho Lding The Same Hence Orders Of The Authorities Below Are Dismisse D And The A O Is Directed To Delete The Addition Accordingly Sole Main Effective Ground No 2 Of The Assessee Is Allowed 11 In The Result The Appeal Is Allowed Decision Pronounced In The Open Court On 12 12 2 017 Sd Sd G D Agrawal C M Garg President Judicial Member 7 Ita No 6904 Del 2014 Dated 12 12 2017 R Naheed Copy Forwarded To 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 Cit 4 Cit Appeals 5 Dr Itat Assistant Registrar Itat New Delhi Date 1 Draft Dictated On 12 10 2017 Ps 2 Draft Placed Before Author 13 10 2017 Ps 3 Draft Proposed Placed Before The Second Member 2017 Jm Am 4 Draft Discussed Approved By Second Member Jm Am 5 Approved Draft Comes To The Sr Ps Ps 18 12 2017 Ps Ps 6 Kept For Pronouncement On Ps 7 File Sent To The Bench Clerk 18 12 2017 Ps 8 Date On Which File Goes To The Ar 9 Date On Which File Goes To The Head Clerk 10 Date Of Dispatch Of Order 8 Ita No 6904 Del 2014