ASHOK KUMAR NARULA (L/H OF SATPAL NARULA),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -03, BHIWANI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.4887/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Narula L/H Vs. Income-Tax Officer, of Late Shri Satpal Narula, Ward-3, C/o. M/s. RRA Taxindia, Bhiwani. D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-1100 49 PAN :ABJPN0935H (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, CA Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 02.08.2022 Date of pronouncement 31.10.2022
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated
14.03.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-5,
Ludhiana for the assessment year 2010-11.
At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee did
not press ground nos. 1 to 3 and wanted to argue the appeal on
merits. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed as not
pressed.
2 ITA No. 4887/Del./2019
Ground nos. 4 and 5 are on the common issue of addition of
Rs.43,68,622 representing cash deposits in the bank account.
Briefly, the facts are, the assessee, since deceased, was a
resident individual. From the information available on record, the
Assessing Officer came to know that in the year under
consideration, assessee had deposited cash amounting to
Rs.38,79,446 in different bank accounts maintained with HDFC
Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and ICICI Bank. Based on such
information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment
under Section 147 of the Act. Alleging that despite several
statutory notices being issued under Section 142(1) of the Act,
the assessee did not respond and furnish the necessary details,
the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment to
the best of his judgment by invoking the provisions of section 144
of the Act. While doing so, he added back an amount of
Rs.43,68,622 to the income of the assessee by treating it as
unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Though, the
assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned
Commissioner (Appeals), however, he was unsuccessful.
Before me, learned counsel for the assessee submitted,
since, the diseased assessee was ill, proper representation could
3 ITA No. 4887/Del./2019
not be made before the Assessing Officer. However, he submitted,
before the first appellate authority the assessee had explained the
source of cash deposits through proper documentary evidence.
Proceeding further, he submitted, in the relevant previous year,
the assessee had sold certain properties and the consideration
received was available for deposit. He submitted, though, relevant
sale deeds were furnished before learned Commissioner (Appeals),
however, he completely ignored such evidences. He submitted,
while taking note of the cash deposits of Rs.43,68,622, the
Assessing Officer has completely ignored the withdrawals made
by the assessee during the year. He submitted, in addition to
opening cash in hand and receipt from sale of property, the
assessee had sufficient cash withdrawals. Therefore, he
submitted, the source of cash deposits stand well explained. He
submitted, since, the evidences furnished have not been
considered by learned Commissioner (Appeals), matter may be
restored back to the Assessing Officer.
Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the
Assessing Officer can reexamine assessee’s claim.
I have considered rival submissions and perused the
material available on record.
4 ITA No. 4887/Del./2019
Undisputedly, the addition contested before me represents
the cash deposits made by the assessee during the year in
different bank accounts.
Before me, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee
has explained the source of cash deposits by submitting a cash
flow statement. On perusal of the said cash flow statement, it
appears that the assessee had opening cash in hand of
Rs.12,00,000 as on 01.04.2009. Withdrawals made during the
year was to the tune of Rs.34,25,000. Besides, in the year under
consideration the assessee had sold various properties from
which sale consideration aggregating to Rs.23,31,000 was
received. Further, the assessee had sold another property on
24.06.2008 from which sale consideration of Rs.8,40,000 was
received. Apparently, assessee’s claim that substantial amount
was received from sale of properties, which was available for
deposit in the bank accounts and also formed part of opening
cash in hand has not at all been considered by learned
Commissioner (Appeals).
Admittedly, the assessee did not furnish any evidence at the
assessment stage. Before learned Commissioner (Appeals) only
assessee furnished evidences to explain the source of cash
5 ITA No. 4887/Del./2019
deposits. Therefore, the evidences furnished by assessee should
have been properly verified by the learned Commissioner
(Appeals), which has not been done.
In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to restore the issue
back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after
considering assessee’s claim qua the evidences brought on
record.
Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer must provide
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before
deciding the issue. These grounds are allowed for statistical
purposes.
Ground nos. 6 & 7 do not require adjudication.
In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2022. Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st October, 2022. Mohan Lal
6 ITA No. 4887/Del./2019
