MANOJ CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4722/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 November 2017AY 2008-095 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding the opening cash balance and sale proceeds of property. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction claimed under Section 80C.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 12,52,300/- in cash into his bank account. The Assessing Officer made additions for opening cash balance and sale proceeds of property, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee also claimed a deduction under Section 80C which was disallowed.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made on account of bank deposits (opening cash balance and sale proceeds of property) were justified. Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80C was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv, Shri Ashish Goel, CA
Hearing: 27.11.2017Pronounced: 29.11.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [A.Y. 2008-09] Shri Manoj Chauhan Vs. The I.T.O 18/259, DMS Colony Ward 70(3) Hari Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAPPC 5193 M [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 27.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2017 Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Ashish Goel, CA Revenue by : Shri Atiq Ahmed Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-28, New Delhi vide order dated 26.08.2016 for A.Y. 2008-09.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 7 grounds of appeal. However, he has pressed only ground Nos. 2 and 3 which read as under:

“2.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on) facts and in law, confirming the addition on account of bank deposits to the extent on Rs.7,32,000/-. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed explanation and evidence submitted by the assessee in this regard. 3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 80C to the extent of Rs. 12,000/-.

(ii) That the addition has been confirmed rejecting the explanation and evidences brought on record by the assessee.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that as per the AIR information, the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs. 12,52,300/- in his bank account. In response to the notice issued, the assessee filed cash flow statement from which the Assessing Officer noticed that there was opening cash balance of Rs. 2,15,460/-, car advance amounting to Rs. 75,000/- and sale proceeds of property amounting to Rs. 5,40,000/-, totaling to Rs. 8,30,460/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition with regard to the opening cash balance in hand amounting to Rs. 1,92,800/- and sale proceeds of property amounting to Rs. 5,40,000/-, totaling to Rs. 7,32,800/-, against which the assessee is in appeal before me.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. With respect to the opening cash in hand, the assessee submitted that the return of income for the assessment year 2007-08, alongwith balance sheet, which shows cash in hand of Rs. 2,15,460/- and no dispute in this regard has been raised by the department. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is not justified in making such addition.

5.

As regards the sale proceeds of the property, it was argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- in cash from Shri Anuj Singh in full and final settlement, against which sale of property and the receipt is detailed at paper book page 11 which has not been questioned. The other documents of the property are available at pages 13 to 15. Necessary confirmations of the other party are on record and the ld. CIT(A) has ignored the explanation given by the assessee and accordingly, no addition on this count can be made. The addition so made is directed to be deleted. Thus, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed.

6.

As regards Ground No. 3, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction u/s 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short], amounting to Rs. 12,000/-, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

7.

I have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. The assessee has produced the necessary receipts, which are on record. The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 79,849/- for which necessary receipts are available at pages 2, 21 to 28 of the paper book. No defects in the same have been pointed out and accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer and the same is directed to be deleted. Thus ground No. 3 is allowed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2017.

More judgments on Section 80C

All 658 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →