Geeta Gupta, New Delhi v. ITO WARD - 48(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 8559/DEL/2019 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 855920114 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AIQPG3564P
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 8559/DEL/2019
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Geeta Gupta, New Delhi
Respondent ITO WARD - 48(1), NEW DELHI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 19-03-2021
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 01-11-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-1: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.8559/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YE AR : 2011-12 GEETA GUPTA 1216 CHAH RAHAT NEAR JAMA MASJID DELHI-110006 PAN-AIQPG3564P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-48(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. DEVESH GUPT A ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : MS . SHIVANI BANSAL SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .03.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 19.08.2019 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-16 NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2011-12. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPART MENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO MULTI COMMODITY TRANSACTIO NS OF RS.60 59 30 000/- AND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE RE TURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2011-12 THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AFTER ITA NO.8559/DEL/2019 2 OBTAINING PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES. ACC ORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 31 ST MARCH 2018 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE INCOME TAX RETURN BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY W ITH THE SAME. THERE WAS ALSO NO RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE DATED 10.10.2018 ISSU ED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE COMPLETED THE ASS ESSMENT DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.60 59 300/- BEING 1% OF RS.60 59 30 000/- OF THE TRANSACTION BY INVOKING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. 3. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORAT E ARGUMENTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER INFORMATION OBT AINED FROM THE BROKER U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD MADE LOSS OF RS.1 74 811/- AND YET THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION BY ADOPTING PROFIT RATE OF 1% ON THE COMMODITY TRANSACTION WITHOUT AN Y BASIS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE MCX DETAILS SHOW A PR OFIT OF RS.1 22 018/- INSTEAD OF LOSS OF RS.1 74 811/- AS REFLECTED IN T HE TRANSACTION SUMMARY OF THE BROKER. BASED ON THE ARGUME NTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS THE REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH REMAND REPORT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCE PTED THE CLAIM OF LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1 74 811/-. HOWEVER HE WENT ON TO DECIDE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF COMM ODITY FUTURES. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED FUTURES COMMOD ITIES OF RS.77 651 79 128/-. IN ORDER TO BUY OR SELL COMMODITIES ON THE EXCHANGE THE USER MUST DEPOSIT SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF MONEY WITH THE B ROKER WHICH IS ITA NO.8559/DEL/2019 3 CALLED THE MARGIN MONEY. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE IS DEPOSIT OF ONLY RS.2 LAKHS WITH THE BROKER AGAINST THE E XISTING BALANCE OF RS.2 69 648/- WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY HIM. HE NOTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 LAKHS WAS PAID TO ANGEL BROKING ON 03.04.2010 AND RS.1 00 0 00/- ON 10.11.2010. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AN A MOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH WAS IN THE NATURE OF A CONTRA ENTRY WHILE RS.2 00 000/- W AS GIVEN BY HER SON SHIVANG GUPTA ON 03.04.2010. 3.1. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTED THE ABOVE CON TENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.4 LAKHS HAS BEEN INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) READS AS UNDER:- THE ABOVE COUNTS WERE EXAMINED VIS--VIS THE BANK AC COUNT OF THE APPELLANT REPRODUCED ABOVE. THERE IS CLEARLY NO WRONG CREDIT/DEBIT OF RS.1 00 000/- I N THE BROKERS ACCOUNT THAT HAS BEEN REVERSED. SO THE CLA IM OF A CONTRA ENTRY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ALSO THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT RS.2 00 000/- WAS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANTS SON. HOWEVER IT IS NOTED THAT THE CREDIT IN THE BROKER ACC OUNT IS ON 01.04.2010 WHEREAS THE PURPORTED CHEQUE GIVEN BY THE SO N IS ON 03.04.2010 AND IS REFLECTED AS A CREDIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT ON 03.04.2010 AND DEBITED FROM HER ACCOUNT ON 05.04.2010. THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS CLEARLY FALLACIOU S. ALSO THE CREDIT OF RS L 00 000/-EACH ON 10.03.2011 AND 10.10.20 11 HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. IN FACT AS NOTED FROM BANK ACCOUN T REPRODUCED SUPRA IT IS NOTED THAT THE PAYMENTS TO THE BROKER ARE PRECEDED BY CREDITS THROUGH NEFT/RTGS FROM VARIOUS ACCOUNTS/SOU RCES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. SO CLEARLY RS 4 00 000/- INVESTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N IS FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES AND FALLS WITHIN THE AEGIS OF SECTI ON 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. I CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS 4 00 00 0/- ON THIS ACCOUNT . THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROCURE THE MARGIN MONEY STATEMENT FROM THE BROKER AND VERIFY THAT THE AMOUN T OF MARGIN ITA NO.8559/DEL/2019 4 MONEY PAID BY APPELLANT MATCHES THE AMOUNT REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT/LEDGER ACCOUNT AS REPRODUCED SUPRA. IF THE MARG IN MONEY AS PER MARGIN MONEY STATEMENT EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT REF LECTED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED ACCOUNTS THE SAID AMOUNT MAY BE TREATED AS THE UNEXPLAINED MARGIN MONEY. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- A. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED AND IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.4 00 000/- FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES U/S 69 C OF THE ACT. B. THAT THE ALLEGED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY HONBLE CIT(A ) WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE BROK ER AS WELL AS THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT WHICH W ERE FILED AND AVAILABLE ON RECORD. C. THAT THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 00 000/- OUT OF RS.4 00 000/- ON THE ALLEGED GROUND OF ACCEPTING THE DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES OF THE SAID AM OUNT EXISTING IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE BROKER AND ALSO IN THE BANK OF THE ASSESSEE. D. ADDITION OF RS.4 00 000/- IS ERRONEOUS ARBITRARY BAD I N EYES OF LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. E. THAT THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJU DICE TO EACH OTHER. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 00 000/- U/S 69C OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MS. GEETA GUPTA MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK CHOWRI BAZAR SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 00 000/- WAS TRANSFERRED ON 03.04.2010 FROM HER SONS ACCO UNT. HE SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 00 000/- WAS PAID ON 05.04.2010 AFTER THE CREDIT OF ABOVE AMOUNT. SIMILARLY ANOTHER AMOUN T OF ITA NO.8559/DEL/2019 5 RS.1 00 000/- WAS PAID TO ANGLE COMMODITY AFTER TRANSFER O F RS.1 00 000/- FROM HER SONS ACCOUNT. REFERRING TO THE S AID BANK ACCOUNT HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE CON TRA ENTRY ON 03.11.2010 I.E. THE DEBIT AND CREDIT OF RS.1 00 000/- EACH. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON AC COUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. 6. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND T HE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND FROM THE DETAILS FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE ASSESSEE REC EIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 00 000/- FROM HER SON MR. SHIVANG GUPTA PROPRIETOR OF M/S ARTS & CRAFTS OF INDIA. THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S ARTS & CRAFTS INDIA REFLECTS THE TRANSFER OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 00 000/- TO GEETA GUPT A ON 03.04.2010. SIMILARLY THERE IS AGAIN TRANSFER OF RS.1 00 000/- TO THE ACCOUNT OF GEETA GUPTA ON 03.11.2010. HOWEVER THE LEARNE D CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE CONTRA ENTRY OF RS.1 00 000/- ON 03 .11.2010 BECAUSE THERE IS A CLEAR MENTION OF INWARD CHEQUE RETUR NED. WE THEREFORE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.3 00 000/- TO ANGEL COMM ODITIES BROKING (P) LTD. STANDS EXPLAINED BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FRO M THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SON OF THE ASSESSEE MR. SHIVANG GUGPTA AND T HERE IS A CONTRA ENTRY OF RS.1 00 000/- DUE TO CANCELLATION OF CHEQUE AND ITA NO.8559/DEL/2019 6 THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED OF ANY ADDITION OF RS.1 00 000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE SET-ASIDE THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DE LETE THE ADDITION OF RS.4 00 000/- MADE BY HIM AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW ED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.03.2021 SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DELHI/DATED- 19.03.2021 F{X~{T COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI