Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.K SAINI & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
The Appellant, Jagat Singh, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2015 qua Assessment Year 2009-10 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi, on the grounds that:-
“1. The ld. C.I.T. (A) has grossly erred in law and facts by not deleting the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer amounting Rs. 66,53,000/- on account of Cash Credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The Id. C.I.T.(A) has grossly erred in law and facts by upholding the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer treating the deposit in the Saving Bank accounts/ pass books with the banks as income from undisclosed sources u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MS. MAYAWATI (2011) 243 CTR (Del) 9: (2011) 338 ITR 563 : (2011) 201 TAXMAN 1 : (2011) 59 DTR 177 read with Ms Mayawati Vs. DCIT (2008) I DTR 68 (Del) 3. The ld. C.I.T.(A) has grossly erred in law and facts by upholding the additions made by the Id. Assessing Officer treating the sum of total transactions of deposit in the Saving Bank accounts/ pass books with the banks as income of the assessee.
4. The ld. C.I.T.(A) has grossly erred in law and facts while taking the money lending to be business of the assessee and that the agriculturists to whom advances were given were not traceable without ascertaining from the ld. A.O. whether or not he has received response after assessment order from the agriculturists to whom summons u/s 131 were issued.
5. The ld. C.I.T. (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts while not considering that the credit card was being used by the son of the assessee, who was the joint holder of the bank account.
6. The ld. C.I.T. (A) has grossly erred in law and facts while holding that a person maintaining three saving bank accounts is supposed/required to maintain regular books of accounts.
7. The ld. C.I.T. (A) has grossly erred in law and facts while taking the explanation given by the assessee that the deposits in bank accounts were made out of the repayments received from the agriculturists from whom interest was also received and disclosed consistently in his return of income over the years to be vague and inadequate to substantiate the genuineness of cash deposited in the bank accounts.
The assessee also requests to be allowed to raise any further ground of appeal during the proceedings or at the time of hearing.”
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary to adjudicate the issues at hand are: The Asseessee is an agriculturist and has also drawing interest income and income from his property dealing business, declared his taxable income at Rs. 1,55,650/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) on receiving information from AIR, that the assessee has deposited cash amount of Rs. 66,53,000/- in his bank accounts with ICICI Bank, which was explained by the assessee vide letter dated 14.10.2011 that this account is joint with his son Amit Kumar Singh a Non Resident Indian (NRI) and an Amount of Rs. 6,04,557/- was transferred by his son from his bank account maintained in a foreign country and cash of Rs. 9 lacs was received by assessee as advance for sale of land from M/s Excellent Infratech Pvt. Ltd. on 10.04.2008 which was refunded to the company on 12.04.2008, when the deal could not be matured. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, AO proceeded to make addition of Rs. 66,53,000/-.
3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing the appeal, who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal.
Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and order passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Bare Perusal of para 3 of the Assessment Order, goes to prove that, the assessee has come up with specific defence/details as to the receipt /deposit of the amount in question by his son, who is NRI as well as from M/s Excellent Infratech Pvt. as refund of earnest money from sale of land, but, AO abruptly proceeded to make the addition by treating the case as ex parte by recording that none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any submissions mere made on 16.12.2011 and 26.12.2011.
Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) also decided the appeal without taking into consideration the contentions raised by assessee, that he was an agriculturists, and used to lend the money to other small agriculturists on interest basis and the interest received by him has been duly shown by him in his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10. Assessee has also pleaded that being an agriculturist he has not required to manage regular books of account and has also given name and address of the agriculturists to whom he has advanced the amount and from whom he has earned interest.
Assessee had produced before Assessing Officer the summary of all Bank Account for the year 2008-09 with Cash Flow Statement and list of person whom the advances were given with their affidavits, aadhar cards and bank accounts statement available at page 59 to 95 of the Paper Book, which have not been considered by the AO as well as by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the matter to the AO to decide afresh after given an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by passing a speaking order and by taking into consideration that the assessee is an agriculturist and has brought on record the entire details concerning additions in question. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10/7/2018