Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) across assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18. The main issue involved cash deposits in the assessee's wife's bank account, which the assessee contended was her independent income from dairy farming, supported by an official closure order for her business. Unexplained deposits in the accounts of the assessee's son and daughter were also at issue for later assessment years.
Held
The Tribunal ruled that additions related to the wife's income, including Rs. 75,000/- for AY 2012-13 and similar amounts for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, should be deleted as they originated from her independent business. However, additions for deposits in the assessee's son's account (Rs. 11,000/- for AY 2016-17, Rs. 85,000/- for AY 2017-18) and daughter's account (Rs. 1,61,460/- for AY 2017-18) were sustained due to the assessee's failure to provide an explanation.
Key Issues
Whether additions made from cash deposits in the assessee's wife's bank account, derived from her independent business, should be attributed to the assessee; and the sustainability of unexplained deposits in the accounts of the assessee's son and daughter.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
(AY 2015-16) (AY 2016-17) ITA No. 2106/DEL/2024 (AY 2017-18) ALLAHA MASHA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE CA ANUPAM SHARMA, MEERUT 02, VICTORIA GARDEN, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, VICTORIA PARK ROAD, BHANSALI GROUND, NEAR JAIL CHUNGI, MEERUT, U.P. 250001 MEERUT, UP-250002 (PAN: AEWPA8963J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by: CA Sourabh Panwar Respondent by: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 09.12.2024 Date of pronouncement: 09.12.2024 ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida relating to assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 respectively. Since these appeals are related to the same assessee, hence, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order by dealing with the facts of (AY 2012-13).
The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 75,000/- as cash deposited by the assessee’s wife in her bank account i.e. in the name of Mrs. Shakila.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us raised the issue of assumption of jurisdiction, but later, he argued the matter on merits only. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further pointed out that Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 75,000/- which is in the name of his wife only. He further submitted that the wife of the assessee is engaged in the business of dairy farming and this fact was proved before the AO & CIT(A) by filing an order from the Deputy District Officer, Shri Vivek Kumar Yadav regarding closure of dairy farming business in Deputy District Officer Residential Complex, Baghpat. Ld. Counsel further pointed out that the present assessee is working as Administrative Officer in the District Magistrate Office, Baghpat and by virtue of this, he resides at Deputy District Officer Residential Complex, Baghpat. Assessee’s wife also resides at the same premises and carrying out the business from the same premises, which is proved by the order of the Deputy District Officer, Baghpat for closure of the said dairy farming business. In view of the above facts, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that addition of Rs. 75,000/- was sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is without any basis and in any case, this addition 2 has to be made in the hands of the assessee’s wife only viz. Mrs. Shakila and not in the hands of the assessee and requested to delete the addition in dispute.
During the hearing, when the aforesaid facts were confronted to the Ld. CIT(DR), he could not controvert the aforesaid facts and situation, but he relied upon the assessment order and the order of the ld. CIT(A).
After hearing the rival contentions and after going through the facts and relevant records, we noted that the present assessee is a working on the post of Administrative Officer in District Magistrate Office, Baghpat and resides in the Deputy District Officer Residential Complex, Baghpat wherefrom his wife carries business of dairy farming. This fact has been proved by the order passed by the Deputy District Officer, Baghpat for closure of the aforesaid dairy farming business carrying out by the wife of the assessee, meaning thereby that assessee’s wife Mrs. Shakila was carrying out the business of dairy farming from which she is having independent source of income. Hence, in our view, the addition in dispute has to be added in the hands of the assessee’s wife and not in the hands of the assessee. Hence, the addition in dispute made in the hands of the assessee deserves to be deleted. We direct accordingly. Hence, the solitary issue raised by the assessee is allowed.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner. , 2121, 2104/DEL/2024 (AYRS. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16-) 7. We note that exactly similar additions have been made in assessment year 2012-13, as discussed above, in the hands of the assessee, which should have been made in the hands of the assessee’s wife. Following the consistent view, as taken in Assessment year 2012-13, as aforesaid, the additions made in AY 2013-14 i.e. Rs.1,11,000/-; AY 2014-15 i.e. Rs.5,35,000/-; AY 2015-16 i.e. Rs. 6,80,000/- are also deleted.
Resultantly, the appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 are partly allowed in the aforesaid manner.
& 2106/DEL/2024 (AYRS. 2016-17 & 2017-18) 9. We note that exact similar additions have been made in the hands of the assessee in assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16, which should have been made in the hands of the assessee’s wife. Hence, following the consistent view, as taken in assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16, the additions made in AY 2016-17 i.e. Rs. 5,53,800 & AY 2017-18 i.e. Rs. 2,69,000/- are also deleted.
As regards, addition sustained in assessment year 2016-17 of Rs. 11,000/- based on the deposits in the account of the assessee’s son is concerned, since no explanation has been offered by the assessee before the authorities below, hence, the same is sustained. Resultantly, the appeal for AY 2016-17 is partly allowed.
As regards, addition sustained in assessment year 2017-18 of Rs. 85,000/- based on the deposits in the account of the assessee’s son and addition 4 of Rs. 1,61,460/- based on the deposits in the account of the assessee’s daughter are concerned, since no explanation has been offered by the assessee before the authorities below, hence, the same are sustained. Resultantly, the appeal for AY 2017-18 is also partly allowed.
As regards issue of assumption of jurisdiction is concerned, as the same has not been argued by the Ld. AR in any of the appeals, hence, the same is dismissed, as such in all the appeals.
In the result, all the 06 appeals of the assesee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are partly allowed in the aforesaid manner.