Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deepak Walia, Vs. ITO, Y-852-853, Phase-1, Ward-71(2), Sultan Puri Road, New Delhi. Nangloi, New Delhi. PAN: AALPW3497N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.11.2016 of the CIT(A)-21, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary. He filed his return of income on 28th July, 2010 declaring total income of Rs.4,05,620/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details and evidence in support of the claim of deduction u/s 10 amounting to Rs.1,15,350/-. He also asked the assessee to file the copy of certificate in respect of payment of Rs.75,000/- to LIC in respect of Jeney Walia, and show under which section the same is eligible for deduction. The Assessing Officer further asked the assessee to explain the various cash deposits in the bank account. Besides the above, the Assessing Officer also asked the assessee to explain the discrepancy of Rs.21,254 in the income shown under the head ‘Salaries’ from The Great Logistics and Parking Services Pvt. Ltd. and evidence in support of Rs.63,735/- received from ICICI Prudentials. The assessee was also asked to explain why the interest on bank deposits amounting to Rs.512 should not be added to the total income of the assessee. After considering the various submissions filed by the assessee from time to time and observing certain discrepancies in the submissions of certain accounts and non-submission of certain details, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.96,500/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained cash deposits in savings bank accounts and unexplained deposit in PPF account. He also made addition of Rs.2,235/- on account of interest received from ICICI Prudential and bank interest of Rs.512/-. Further, the Assessing Officer did not allow the HRA claimed u/s 10(13A) amounting to Rs.1,38,504/-.
Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed certain details as additional evidence. The ld.CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the remand report of the Assessing Officer and the objection of the assessee on the said remand report, the ld.CIT(A) sustained the action of the Assessing Officer on account of denial of exemption u/s 10(13A). So far as the addition of Rs.96,500/- being the unexplained cash deposit and Rs.25,000/- being the unexplained deposit in the PPF account is concerned, he also sustained the above additions made by the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:-
1. “The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,58,758/- in the returned income of the Appellant, without adjudicating the submission of the appellant judicially.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned C1T(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of exemption of House Rent Allowance (HRA) u/s 10(13A) of the Act amounting to Rs 1,29,643/- claimed in spite of the fact the Appellant submitted certificate from her mother regarding payment of rent of Rs 15,000/-per month. 2.1. The Appellant submitted additional evidence under Rule 46A with reasons for not submitting the certificate of the payment of rent from the landlord.
3. That the Learned C1T(A) erred in upholding the addition of cash on different dates totaling to Rs.96,500/- deposited in bank account by the Appellant from the withdrawals made earlier from the account and amount deposited by her wife from her income. The impugned Bank Account was in the Joint name with the wife of the Appellant.
With Prejudice to above:- 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Saving Bank A/c No. 25507284 in State Bank of India which is in joint name of Appellant and his wife, Babita Walia and therefore, the entire addition of Rs. 96,500/- could not have been made in the income of the Appellant u/s 69 of the Act.
4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the nature of addition of Rs. 25,000/- u/s 69 with respect of amount deposited in PPF account, which was explained out of withdrawal from the State Bank of India on 30.03.2010 deposited in Post Office on 31.03.2010. The Learned CIT(A) adjudicated the ground with respect to section 80C.
That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the Grounds of the Appeal.”
5. The ld. counsel for the assessee, referring to page 10 of the paper book, drew the attention of the bench to the certificate issued by Mrs. Bimla Devi towards the monthly rent of Rs.15,500/- per month towards letting out of the property at Y-852-853, Phase I, Nangloi, New Delhi – 110 041. So far as the addition of Rs.96,500/- is concerned, he submitted that the bank account stands jointly in the name of self and his wife and, therefore, the entire amount cannot be added in the hands of the assessee and at best only 50% of the unexplained deposits can be added. So far as the addition of Rs.25,000/- in the PPF account is concerned, he submitted that the same is also not warranted as the same was deposited out of the earlier withdrawals. Referring to page 23-28 of the paper book, he submitted that each and every deposit and withdrawal was explained before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) and, therefore, no addition is called for.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A) and the 6.
Assessing Officer.
I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the 7. orders of the authorities below. I find, due to non-submission of rent certificate from the landlady Smt. Bimla Devi along with the proof of her ownership, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of HRA u/s 10(13A) which was claimed by the assessee as exempt. Although the assessee filed the copy of the rent certificate from the landlady before the CIT(A) as additional evidence, I find the ld.CIT(A), after considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer, rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to produce before the Assessing Officer copy of the rent certificate from the landlady and copy of ownership document of the property by her.