TEJ LAL BHARTI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-67(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 855/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2019AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not sufficiently substantiated the source of funds. However, considering the circumstances and the sons being well-settled, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to prove his claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an 80-year-old individual, deposited Rs. 16,65,000/- in his bank account. He claimed this amount was financial support from his sons for house construction, which was later deposited due to his brother's death. The authorities below rejected this explanation.

What were the issues?

Whether the deposits in the assessee's bank account constituted unexplained cash credits. Whether the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of these deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI T.S. KAPOOR

For Appellant: Shri Tej Lal Bharti, Assessee
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.05.2019Pronounced: 23.05.2019

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 15.11.2018. The assessee has taken various grounds of appeal which is in the form of facts of the case. However, the crux of grounds of appeal is the action of the Ld. CIT(A) by which he has confirmed an addition of Rs. 16,65,000/- which the AO had made on account of deposits in his bank account.

2. At the outset, the assessee stated that he is an old person of 80 years and his three sons used to help him financially and one of his son is a citizen of Ireland and another is British citizen and third is a Doctor in the Government Medical College in Delhi and these all my sons had been helping financially for the purpose of constructing a house in my native village in Punjab. However, due to sudden death of my brother, I did not construct the house and had to deposit the entire amount laying with me in the bank account which the authorities below have wrongly added to my income. It was submitted that the passport copies of my sons and the confirmations by them confirming therein the financial support of me were filed but the authorities below have rejected the same.

3.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that assessee could not substantiate that the payments deposited by him in the bank account were received by him from his children as the authorities below clearly held that the visits of the sons and their wives happened only after the deposit of money in the bank. The assessee in his rejoinder stated that before their arrival my sons used to send me money through relatives and whenever he visited them in foreign countries, he was given money by sons. Therefore, it was prayed that the addition sustained by Ld. CIT(A) may be deleted.

4.

I have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. I find that the Assessing Officer did not believe the written confirmations filed by his sons as he had held that no specific instance and amount was mentioned by the sons of the assessee and moreover, the authorities below has held that the money was deposited before the visit of sons and their wives.

The contention of the assessee that money was kept by him for construction of a house was also not accepted by the authorities below. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the children of the assessee were well settled. I, feel that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate the source of funds. In view of the above, I set aside the issue to the office of the Assessing Officer who should re-adjudicate the issue after hearing the assessee. Assessee will be at liberty to file any other evidence to substantiate his claim.

5.

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/05/2019

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →