ITO, GHAZIABAD vs. SH. JAI BHAGWAN AGARWAL, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 666/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2018AY 2009-106 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,50,000/-. The evidence, including bank statements and loan confirmations, satisfactorily explained the source of these deposits, which were partly bank loans and partly loans from the assessee's brother.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income from business and had cash deposits in his savings account. The Assessing Officer (AO) added cash deposits of Rs. 15,00,500/- and Rs. 37,50,000/- due to lack of proper explanation. The assessee provided additional evidence before the CIT(A) for the Rs. 37,50,000/- addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence and deleting the addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- without proper appreciation of facts and in contravention of Rule 46A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 18/06/2018

The aforesaid appeal has been filed against impugned order dated 22.11.2012, passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the asstt. year 2009-10. In the grounds of appeal revenue has raised following grounds:-

“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence before the AO.

2. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in accepting the additional evidences submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, which is in contravention of provision of the rule 46A of the Income tax Act, 1962. The condition of rule 46A(1) of the LT. Act, 1962 are not satisfied as the assessee has been provided sufficient opportunity by the AO to adduce the evidence and the assessee was not prevented by any sufficient cause for producing the evidence before the AO.”

2.

The assessee is an individual who has filed his return of income at Rs.4,00,256/- from business. In the return of income assessee has declared he is not liable for maintenance of books of accounts. Though he has not mention the nature of business but the income from the business were shown at Rs. 4,98,256/- against which no expenses have been claimed. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the basis of information that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 15,00,500/- in the saving bank account and accordingly assessee was asked to explain the source for cash deposit in the bank account alongwith month wise cash deposit during the relevant financial year. He was also asked to furnish copy of statement of all bank accounts to explain all credit entries. Before the AO as noted in the assessment order there has been huge non compliance of the assessee. However, it was on the response to one show cause notice the assessee had submitted as under:-

“1. The assessee was engaged in the electric repairing work.

2. Assessee is having its ancestral property at Vill. Shahpur,

Bhameta, Ghaziabad. There was an agreement of sale executed on 17.7.2008 for Rs. 60 lacs on that day 10% of the aggremental value i.e. Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid in cash by Mr. Mukesh s/o Sh.

Suresh Chand (Purchaser). On 10.9.2008 purchaser paid additional Rs. 4,00,000/-. The date for registry was fixed at a period of 2 month i.e. 17.9.2008. On 16.9.2008 Purchaser paid

Rs. 10,00,000/-. Registry could not be completed due to legal issues. On 22.9.2008 Rs, 20,00,000/- was returned to Mr.

Mukesh.”

Thereafter AO further asked certain queries which again was not complied with. AO after detailed discussion and on the basis of whatever material assessee has furnished had not only added the cash deposit of Rs. 15,00,500/- but also had added the sum of Rs. 37,50,000/- which was deposited through cheques in his bank account, because assessee could not give any proper explanation to the AO.

3.

Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the cash deposit of Rs, 15,00,500/- after detailed discussion. However with regard to addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- the details of deposits in the assessee’s bank account with State Bank of Patiala has been noted as under :-

(i)Rs. 9,00,000/- Dated 16.9.2008 (ii)Rs. 9,00,000/- Dated 16.10.2008 (iii)Rs. 12,00,000/- Dated 8.11.2008 (iv) Rs. 7,50,000/- Dated 10.1.2007

4.

Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that he has taken loan of Rs. 9 lacs from his brother Shri Trilok Chand Agarwal while other entry were loan disbursement made by the bank and there were transfer entries from assessee’s own bank loan account to his saving account. Confirmation of the brother Shri Trilok Chand Agarwal was furnished alongwith the details of loan account of the assessee. All these evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) were sent to the AO to submit his remand report. In response AO has not found any material discrepancy in such evidences and has merely said that these bank statements do not offer any explanation. Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the said addition after observing and holding as under:-

“5.2.3 I hold that although details were not furnished before AO because of lack of adequate opportunity; but now the bank statements and confirmations etc. have been filed which are relevant and admissible. These are bank transactions, so cannot be back dated or fabricated. These explanations and evidences satisfactorily explain the source of all the four cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 37,50,000/-.”

5.

After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the relevant finding given in the impugned orders, we find that so far as the addition of Rs. 15,00,500/- on account of cash deposits, the same has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). However with regard to the deposit of Rs. 37,50,000/-, it was submitted that sum of Rs. 28,50,000/- was on account of loans taken from the bank which has been transferred from his loan account to the saving bank account of the assessee for which relevant entries in the bank statement has been verified and appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A) and no defect discrepancy has been find out by the AO when same was confronted to the AO. Accordingly, so far as the source of deposits of sums aggregating to Rs. 28,50,000/-, the same has been fully explained. In so far as the sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- which has been stated by the assessee that the same was a loan received from assessee’s brother and there were transfer entries from his brother’s bank account to the assessee’s account for which confirmation and bank statement of his brother was also filed before the authorities below. A copy of the bank statement which has been placed in the paper book reflects that amount has come by way of transaction from the account of Shri Trilok Chand Agarwal, who has also given his confirmation that he has given the loan from his bank account to his younger brother. In wake of these evidences, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,50,000/-. Accordingly grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.

6.

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →