Smt. Satwant Kaur, Ludhiana v. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 887/CHANDI/2017 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 88721514 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN DHQPK6713L
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 887/CHANDI/2017
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s)
Appellant Smt. Satwant Kaur, Ludhiana
Respondent ITO, Ludhiana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 27-11-2017
First Hearing Date 27-11-2017
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 29-05-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHB CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.887/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT. SATWANT KAUR VS. THE ITO W/O SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH 4476/2 WARD V(4) STREET NO. 10 OPP. POST OFFICE LUDHIANA SHIMLAPURI LUDHIANA PAN NO. DHQPK6713L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. KULDEEP SINGH SH. AMANDEEP VATS REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 27/11/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/11/2017 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 2 LUDHIANA DT. 01/03/2016 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2016 HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER' OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II LUDHIANA WITHOUT GIVING ANY NOTICE AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT . THEREFORE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II LUDHIANA IS ILLEGAL UNWARRANTED UNCALLED FOR AND AGAINST THE LAW AND J USTICE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS)-II LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 28 50 000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY REASONS A ND WITHOUT MENTIONED ANY REASONS IN HER ORDER. THEREFORE ADDITION OF RS. 28 50 000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II LUDHIANA IS ILLEGAL UNWARRANTED UNC ALLED FOR AND MAY BE DELETED. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS)-II LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 28 50 000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND REMAND REPORT CALLED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITS 'THAT THE ASSESSEE 'S CONTENTION SEEMS REASONABLE THAT SOME OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK A CCOUNT WERE MADE AFTER CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFO RE ADDITION OF RS. 2 28 50 000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER A ND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) LUDHIANA IS ILLEGAL UNWARRANTED UNCALLED FOR AND MAY BE DELETED. 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT AS PER AIR INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND SH. SUKHWINDER S INGH HAD DEPOSITED RS. 28 50 000/- IN CASH WITH PUNJAB & SIND BANK NEW JA NTA NAGAR LUDHIANA. IN PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE AO AND AFTER CO NSIDERING THE REPLY THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD JOINT ACCOUNT WITH HER HUSBAND SH. SUKHWINDER KAUR THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE APPELLANT'S HUSBAND SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH WAS FILED AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS STARTED IN THE CASE OF SMT. SATWANT KAUR THE APPELLANT. SUBSQUENT LY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AFTER RECORDING REASONS. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT THE APPELLANT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.03.2014 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1 68 600/-. IN RESPONSE TO THE DETAILED QUESTIONNAI RE ISSUED FROM THE AO THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS DOING RE TAIL BUSINESS AND FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME U/S 44AF OF THE ACT I.E. DECLARING INCOME @5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND WAS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE IN WHICH THE AO ASKED TO VERIFY THE CASH DEPO SITS OF RS. 28 50 000/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT NO. SB/6945 WITH PUNJAB & SIND BANK IN THE NAME OF SMT. SATWANT KAUR AND SH. SUKHWINDER KAUR. THE AO ALSO ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE THESE DEPOSITS ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY/C ORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FAILING WHICH THESE DEPOSITS IN YOUR SAVING BANK AC COUNT MAY BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND A DDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN RESPONS E TO SHOW CAUSE THE APPELLANT MERELY FILED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND CONTENDED THAT SHE WAS DOING RETAIL BUSINESS AND CASH DEPOSITED BY HER WER E OUT OF CASH FLOW CHART FURNISHED BY HER. THE AO WAS OF VIEW THAT THE APPEL LANT HAD COMPLETELY FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 28 50 000/- WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. 3. THE AO PLACED THE RELIANCE OF THE FOLLOWING JUDG EMENTS:- JASPAL SINGH VS. CIT JALANDHAR [P&H HIGH COURT] CIT VS DURG'A PRASAD MORE 82 ITR 540 [SUPREME COURT ] SUMATI DAYAL VS CIT 214 ITR 801 [SUPREME COURT] SREELEKHA BANERJEE AND OTHERS VS CIT (SC) 48 ITR 11 2 3 4. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION HOLDING T HAT IT IS NOT BELIEVABLE THAT THE ENTIRE SALE PURCHASE HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH REGARD TO THESE SO CALLED BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER HEADWAY FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION. THE CASH DEPOSIT S FOUND CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS CAN ALSO NOT BE LINKED WITH ANY BUSINESS T RANSACTION. IN A NUT SHELL THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE NATURE OF CASH CREDITS COU LD NOT BE FULLY EXPLAINED. HE HELD THAT THE PERUSAL OF ENTRIES IN BANK ACCOUNT SH OWS THAT THERE IS NO REGULAR MOVEMENT /TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE /SALE. THE LD. CI T(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THERE WERE REGULAR WITHDRAWAL AGAINST FEW OF DEPOSITS ONL Y THEREFORE THE DEPOSITS IN CASH CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO CASH WITHDRAWL FROM TI ME TO TIME. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. AR REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS DOING RETAIL BUSINESS AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 44AF OF TH E ACT DECLARING INCOME AT 5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO MA INTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT A REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN OBT AINED BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE REMAND REPORT RECEIVED WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTI ON OF WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSITS IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNTS SEEMS REASONABLE THUS GR OSSLY IGNORING THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE . 6. THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ARGUMENTS OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN 5% PROFIT UNDER SECTION 44AF AND IN THE BUSI NESS OF TRADING OF CLOTHS AND SHAWLS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE R EMAND REPORT AND TO GIVE DUE BENEFIT TO THE WITHDRAWALS SHOWN WHILE DECIDING THE ADDITION. HENCE WE REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE ON A REASONABLE BASIS AFTER GIVING BENEFIT OF DEBIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29/11/2017 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT TH E CIT(A) THE DR