Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No. 725/JP/16
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No. 725/JP/16 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Smt. Kavita Rangwani, 4-Ba-12, The Income Tax Officer Vs. Ward, 6(1), Jaipur Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AATPR 5849 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : ShriK.L. Moolchandani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Jha. (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 13.01.2017 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 16/01/2017. vkns'k@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-5, Jaipur dated 05.05.2016 wherein the assessee has challenged levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the additions of Rs. 4,00,550/- sustained by the coordinate Bench in the quantum proceedings. “ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has factually and legally erred in restricting the penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the finally sustained addition of Rs. 4,00,550/- without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective.”
Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee alongwith her husband was having a joint overdraft account maintained with Axis Bank which was operated by her husband and which was not disclosed to the department. In
ITA No. 725/JP/16 Smt. Kavita Rangwani vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur the order u/s 143(3) the AO assessed the entire credit by way of cheque deposit in the said account amounting to Rs. 1,19,73,500/- as income of the assessee. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) held that the cheque deposit could not have been doubted as these funds loads from the overdraft facility availed by the husband of the appellant and there was only rotation of overdraft funds whereby the funds advanced on earlier dates were received back and there were no fresh deposit and all the credit entries in the said bank a count flowed from the bank account only. The ld. CIT(A) further held that each and every major credit entries was explained by the appellant, however, the AO was not willing to accord any cognisance to the explanation submitted by her. Further the ld. CIT(A) has held that even if the version of the appellant is ignored then also the AO could have taxed 0nly the peak balance in the alleged bank a/c . By no stretch of imagination the AO was authorised to treat the entire cheque deposits as unexplained. In respect of unexplained income possible redundancy of the same income being considered more than once in computation could be avoided by taking only the peak credit when there were many credits and debits d in the same bank a count and the peak credit was worked out to Rs. 8,01,050/- which was upheld out of Rs.1,19,73,500/- assessed by the AO as income of the assessee.
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 8,01,050/- before the coordinate Bench whereby the coordinate Bench has reduced the addition to Rs. 4,00,550/-. While restricting the addition to Rs. 4,00,550/- which is subject matter of penalty before us. Here it would be relevant to note that the findings of the oordinate Be n ch while restricting he addition to Rs. 4,00,550/- where the oordinae Ben ch has stated that in the peculiar background of assessee being a house maker having no knowledge of construction debit and
ITA No. 725/JP/16 Smt. Kavita Rangwani vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur credit entries in the Bank and prolonged illness of her husband non of which is questioned by the lower authorities.
In the light of above discussion we are of the view that the assessee has provided the reasonable explanation regarding various credit and debit entries in the bank account maintained and operated by her husband, the levy of penalty is not justifiable hence the same is deleted.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Jaipur Dated:- 16/01/2017
Pillai आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Kavita Rangwani, Jaipur 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT –II, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)-II, Jaipur 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.725 /JP/2016)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत.
ITA No. 725/JP/16 Smt. Kavita Rangwani vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur