SH. MEENA BAWA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5823/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 March 2017AY 2010-116 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 held that the assessee provided sufficient explanation regarding the source of the cash deposit, which was not controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) could not be sustained and was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 35 lakh cash in her savings bank account. She explained that the money belonged to her husband, and it was subsequently transferred to his account. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 35 lakh, but the CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 20 lakh after deleting Rs. 15 lakh.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made in the hands of the assessee for unexplained cash deposits is sustainable when the assessee claims the money belongs to her husband and provides supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06/03/2017Pronounced: 09/03/2017

PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of ld. CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi vide order dated 11.08.2015 for the A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.That the LD C1T (A) 21, New Delhi has erred in law & on facts, while upholding addition of Rs 20,00,000/- u/s 69 A of IT Act.

2. That the LD C1T (A) New Delhi has arbitrarily rejected the explanations of assessee against the admitted fact that entire Cash deposit was made in Joint account was belonging to her Page 1 of 6 husband which was duly accepted by the LD AO also. Hence no addition could be sustained in the hands of the assessee.

3. That the LD CIT (A) New Delhi has erred in law and on facts while admitting part evidence and rejecting other equally relevant evidence submitted by the assessee , it is contended that decision of the LD CIT (A) is arbitrary & purely based on surmises & Conjectures & void-ab-initio.

4. That the LD CIT (A) New Delhi has erred in law & on facts white acting beyond his jurisdiction as the entire addition (if any ) have to be made will be hands of Sh D.S Bawa Therefore order was passed without jurisdiction & is null & void and non-est.

5. That the LD CIT (A) has erred in Law & on facts in not allowing sufficient opportunity to the appellant to bring the complete evidence & details on record & explain the material/explanations placed on record. The decisions has been made in most hurried manner & against the principle of Natural justice.

6. That your appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of are without prejudice to each other.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer received AIR information regarding deposit of cash amounting to Rs. 35 lac by the assessee in her saving bank account. She explained the sources that the said amount is belonging to her husband, which was returned back to her husband through his bank account. The explanation was not found satisfactory and therefore the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 35 lac.

3. Before the ld. CIT (A) all the evidences were filed but the ld. CIT (A) was satisfied with the evidence of Rs. 15 lac and accordingly deleted the addition of Rs. 15 lac and confirmed the addition of Rs. 20 lac.

4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. It was submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee is holding a Joint Saving Bank A/c SB 01 / 010022 (PB Pg. 16-23). So, no addition could be made in the hands of assessee as the money belongs to Sh. D.S. Bawa. Being the first name holder in Saving Bank A/c, assessee's case was selected for scrutiny to examine the source of cash Deposit of Rs. 35,00,000/-. Assessee in her first reply before AO placed at AO order dt. 28.3.2013 Pg. 1 Para 3(i) specifically replied that deposit of cash of Rs. 35,00,000/- belong to her husband D.S. Bawa & immediately after a deposit of this cash same was transferred to assessee's husband another Saving Bank A/c No. A/c SB 01 / 010022 available at PB Pg. 16-23. Therefore, no addition could be made in hands of assessee as the money belong to Sh. D.S. Bawa. Alternatively & without prejudice to above on merits, the detail of deposit in Saving Bank A/c & source of Deposit is as under, the Chart submitted before AO & CIT(A) is at PB Pg. 47, is reproduced herein below:-

Amount Source of Funds Deleted by CIT(A) Date of Deposit (Rs.) 31.10.2009 9,00,000 Cash withdrawn from Saving Bank A/c No. CIT(A) confirmed 10022 of Corporation Bank by Sh. D.S. addition 89,00,000/- Bawa, husband of assessee dt. 5/9/2009 (Rs. 13,00,000) {PB Pg. 19}

Cash withdrawn from Saving Bank A/c No. Out of Rs. 26,00,000/ - 10022 of Corporation Bank by Sh. D.S. CIT(A) accepted Rs. 16.03.2010 8,00,000 Bawa, husband of assessee dt. 14/12/2009 15,00,000/- & confirmed (Rs. 1,00,000) {PB Pg. 19} addition Rs. 11,00,000/-

Cash Withdrawn from Saving Bank A/c No. 26.03.2010 000 9.0. 2326 of Corporation Bank by Sh. Sunil Singh Bawa (Rs 3,58,200) {PB Pg. 25} 000 9.0. Cash Withdrawn from Saving Bank A/c No. 30.03.2010 2326 of Corporation Bank by Sunil Singh Bawa, Brother in Law of assessee dt. 24.12.2009 (Rs 9,00,000) {PB Pg. 26}

Capital withdrawn in cash by Sh D.S. Bawa from M/s Sats Corporation dt. 16.3.2010 (Rs. 15,00,000) {PB Pg. 45}

(AO & CIT(A) accepted said amount given relief to assessee)

From above, it is clear that CIT(A) has given part relief relying upon the submission of assessee that amount withdrawn bv Sh. D.S. Bawa, husband of assessee amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- & overlooked the assessee’s submission relating to cash withdrawn in Saving Bank A/C NO. 10022 dt. 5.9.2009 amounting Rs. 13,00,000/- & dt. 14.12.2009 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-. CIT (A) has not considered that the amount withdrawn from saving bank account 10022 has been returned to same bank Page 4 of 6 account & assessee is nowhere related to said cash deposit as per PB. Pg. 19, 20 & 22. I.T Return of Sh. D.S. Bawa is available at PB Pg. 29. As regards Cash withdrawn from Saving Bank A/c No. 2326 of Corporation Bank by Sh. Sunil Singh Bawa amounting Rs. 12,58,200/-, the detail of cash withdrawal & deposit is at PB Pg. 14. Here, ld. CIT(A) overlooked that the said cash was given by Sh. Sunil Singh Bawa to his brother Sh. D.S. Bawa. I.T Return of Sh. Sunil Singh Bawa is at PB Pg. 30.

5.

In the circumstances and facts of the case I agree with the contentions of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee has submitted sufficient explanation which could not be controverted by the ld. DR and therefore the explanation is found to be satisfactory. In my view the addition cannot be sustained by the ld. CIT(A) and addition so sustained is directed to be deleted. Thus, all grounds of the assessee are allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

7.

Pronounced in the open court on 09.03.2017.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →