SH. KISHAN SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5403/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 June 2016AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that a withdrawal of Rs. 16,50,000 was made by the other joint holder, suggesting he might have also made the deposit. The matter was restored to the AO to ascertain the depositor and their source of funds.

What were the facts?

The assessee held a joint bank account with another partner, into which Rs. 16,60,000 was deposited. The AO added this amount to the assessee's income as the source was not explained, despite the assessee claiming the other partner made the deposit. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in adding the entire amount deposited in a joint account to the assessee's income without ascertaining the actual depositor and the source of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Samir Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.06.2016Pronounced: 21.06.2016

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) passed on 15.7.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.16,50,000/- towards the amount deposited in the joint bank account.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was holding a joint bank account with Shri Pramod Kumar, another partner.

A sum of Rs.16,60,000/- was deposited in this bank account. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of cash deposited in the bank.

The assessee submitted that no such cash was deposited by him in the bank account and the cash might have been deposited by Shri Pramod Kumar, the other joint holder. To verify the genuineness of the assessee’s assertion, the AO issued summons u/s 131 to Shri Pramod Kumar for personal appearance. Since Shri Pramod Kumar did not attend the proceedings, the AO made addition of Rs.16,60,000/- in the hands of the assessee, which came to be confirmed in the first appeal.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee was holding a joint account with Shri Pramod Kumar as it is manifest from page 1 of the paper book which is copy of bank statement.

A sum of Rs.16.60 lac was deposited on different dates between 11.5.2009 and 14.5.2009 in this bank account. On 15.5.2009, there is a debit entry of Rs.16,50,000/- with the narration ‘Clg.’ A copy of the relevant cheque amounting to Rs.16.50 lac has been placed on record as an additional evidence, which bears the signature of Shri Pramod Kumar. Prima facie, it appears that since the withdrawal has been made by Shri Pramod Kumar from a joint account, the corresponding amounts might also have been deposited by him alone. On a query, the ld. AR submitted that the pay-in-slips for such cash deposit were not readily available. In the light of the additional evidence filed before me, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the matter requires to be restored to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct the AO to first ascertain the name of the person who deposited the amount in the joint bank account. If the pay-in-slips of the cash deposit in the bank indicate the name of the assessee as a depositor, then, the liability would be fastened on the assessee to explain the source of such deposit. In the converse situation, the obligation should fall on Shri Pramod Kumar, who utilized the deposit by issuing a cheque of Rs.16,50,000/-.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open court on 21.06.2016.

More judgments on Section 131

All 4,706 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →