MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

PDF
ITA 2332/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 February 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

Assessment orders for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 were framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3), with the AO making additions for unexplained bank deposits of Rs. 1,08,500/- and Rs. 2,61,000/- respectively under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE. The assessee's claim that these were contributions from his father and brother, supported by affidavits, was rejected by the lower authorities on grounds of low income of contributors or lack of detailed source.

Held

The Tribunal observed that the amounts were small and there is no presumption that individuals with low income cannot have small savings. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and decided the issue concerning the additions for unexplained deposits in favour of the assessee.

Key Issues

Confirmation of additions for unexplained deposits into bank accounts under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE and charging of interest under sections 234A & 234B of the Income Tax Act.

Sections Cited

Section 69, Section 115BBE, Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 153A, Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA, Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Hearing: 21.02.2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2331/Del/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

ITA No.2332/Del/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Manoj Kumar Jain, vs. ACIT, Central Circle 14, D-1/113, SF, Sector 16, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi – 110 089.

(PAN : AAAPJ0445J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date of Order : 28.02.2024

ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These are appeals by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT (Appeals)-28, New Delhi both dated 20.06.2023 for the AYs 2017-18 &

2018-19.

2.

The assessee has taken the following common grounds of appeal except the difference in amount :-

2 ITA Nos.2331 & 2332/Del/2023 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities have erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,08,500/- & Rs.2,61,000/- for the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively on account of unexplained deposits into back accounts under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The action of the authorities below is wrong, illegal, misconceived, unjustified and bad at law therefore it should be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities have erred in charging interest u/s 234A & interest u/s 234B. The action of the authorities are wrong, illegal, misconceived, unjustified and bad at law therefore it should be quashed.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that assessment order was framed in this

case under section 153A r.w.s. 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for

short ‘the Act’). AO made various additions.

4.

Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) granted substantial relief but he

sustained the addition on account of unexplained deposits into bank

amounting to Rs.1,08,500/- and Rs.2,61,000/- for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19.

5.

Assessee’s plea in this regard was that assessee has filed affidavit

from his father and brother contributing this amount to the assessee. But this

plea was not accepted on the ground that they have low income or that

source of income is not given in detail.

3 ITA Nos.2331 & 2332/Del/2023 6. Upon careful consideration and perusing the records, we find that the

amount involved is very small but there is no presumption that the people

having low income cannot have small savings. In this view of the matter, we

set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of February, 2024.

Sd/- sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 28th day of February, 2024 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-28, New Delhi. 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI | BharatTax