Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-II’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 15.4.2014 of Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. The ground raised in the Assessee’s appeal reads as under:-
1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad is bad in law and on facts.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstancse of the case the appellant denies his liability to be assessed u/s. 144 and consequently to pay tax thereon.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) Faridabad erred in :
A) Rejecting the claim of the appellant for surrender of peak credit of the cash deposited in to the bank accounts to the tune of Rs. 7,60,895/- made before the Ld. CIT(A) in good faith. B) Confirming the addition of Rs. 38,36,000/- without pursuit the facts of the case fully and properly.
4. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of the AO in charging interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal
at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return declaring income at Rs. 1,85,250/- on 4.2.2010 which was processed on the returned income. The case was taken for scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued ON 14.9.2010 fixing the case for 20.9.2010 and in response thereto Assessee’s AR attended appeared before the AO on 22.9.2010 and again notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 10.1.2011 alongwith questionnaire issued for 21.1.2011. Again notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) dated 31.1.2011 issued for 11.2.2011. On 11.2.2011 the assessee attended the proceedings and requested for adjournment. Fresh Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 11.3.2011 for 23.3.2011, but none attended nor any reply filed. Again notice u/s. 142(1)of the Act was issued on 10.5.2011 for 19.5.2011 alongwith show cause as to why penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act may not be initiated. But on the fixed date, the Assessee’s counsel appeared and case was adjourned for 27.5.2011 on the request of the counsel, but again the same was not complied with. Thereafter, AO observed that assessee is doing some business of cattle field. AO noticed that it is an unaudited case and gross receipts / sales during the year was shown of Rs. 21,40,400/- only declaring business gain of Rs. 1,85,250/- and filed her return as retail traders u/s. 44AF of the I.T. Act. In view of the above, information/ documents obtained from the bank and after examination of the same, assessment of the income of the assessee was made. The AO noticed that assessee has deposited Rs. 38,36,800/- in cash in lumpsum in random interval in her bank account whereas on perusal of return of the assessee, it is found that she has not declared any sale declaring business gain of Rs. 1,85,250/- during the year under consideration. No detail in this regard was furnished before the AO. AO further observed that the same transactions cannot pertain to business since no regular trading pattern of business is reflected in the bank statement but lump-sum deposits and payments. Since assessee has not produced her books to get her business income verified. Accordingly, the results cannot be accepted. Hence, the AO vide his order dated 15.12.2011 passed u/s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 40,21,250/- and added back the amount of Rs. 38,36,000/- deposited in cash in the bank account of the assessee and treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee.
3. Against the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) and also filed additional evidence under Rule 46A, which was forwarded to AO for examination, both with regard to the admissibility of additional evidence and the merit of addition made in the light of additional evidence, submitted by the assessee. AO’s report has been reproduced in the CIT(A)’s order, after considering which ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 38,36,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account, rejecting the assessee’s surrender of peak credit balance of Rs. 7,60,894/- before AO in remand proceedings, inter alia, observing that on one hand the AO had recommended rejection of additional evidence and has conclusively tried to establish the fact that source of cash deposit could not be satisfactorily explained, on the other, he has referred to the surrender of peak credit balance in his bank account and payment of tax thereon by the assessee. He pointed out that since AO has not been able to substantiate in his report as to why peak credit balance may be accepted, the assessee’s contention was to be rejected.
Now the Assessee is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
At the threshold, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has stated that the issues involved in the present appeal are squarely covered by the ITAT, ‘C’ Bench, New Delhi in (AY 2009-10) in the case of Hansraj S/o Sh. Ishria vs. ITO, Faridabad. In this behalf, he filed the copy of the said decision and requested that by following the same reasoning, the additions in dispute may be deleted and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 6. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the decision referred by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee in the case of Hansraj vs. ITO, Faridabad passed in ITA No. 1139/Del/2014 (AY 2009-10) dated 26.6.2016. I find considerable cogency in the assessee’s counsel in relying upon the aforesaid decision of the ITAT, New Delhi. For the sake of clarity, I am reproducing the finding given vide para no. 5 to 7 at pages 4 to 5 of the ITAT, Delhi decision dated 26.6.2016 in the case of Hansraj vs. ITO, Faridabad passed in ITA No. 1139/Del/2014 (AY 2009-10) as under:- “5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case . It is not disputed that assesse was doing the business of cattle feeds. In the statement of facts, filed before ld. CIT(A), the assessee had pointed out that it was in the business of retail trading of cattle feeds e.g. peddy, khal, choori, chilka, gud, jawar and barsam etc. and assessed with ITO, Ward 11(3), Faridabad. Return of income had been filed u/s 44AF, by declaring business income of Rs. 2,18,040/- and turnover of Rs.
30,25,200/-. It was also submitted in the statement of facts that the assessee deposited the cash of Rs. 72,65,400/- and at the same time withdrew cash of Rs. 64,04,556/- during the relevant assessment year. Deposits were primarily from withdrawal from bank, sale proceeds and realization debtors. Assessee had not maintained any books of a/c.
Now the issue is whether entire deposits in the bank could be assessed to tax, disregarding the amounts withdrawn by assessee or not. Admittedly, neither any other source of income has been pointed out by AO nor any investment out of withdrawals from bank has been shown. Under such circumstances, assessee’s explanation that both the bank accounts were in relation to its business, cannot be doubted. In our opinion, the peak surrendered by assessee should have been accepted by lower revenue authorities, in the absence of books of a/c. We order accordingly.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed accordingly.”
After perusing the aforesaid decision of the ITAT, Delhi, I am of the considered view that the issues in dispute are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, because the facts and circumstances of the present case are exactly similar and identical to that of case of Hansraj vs. ITO (Supra). Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the ITAT, New Delhi in the case of Hansraj vs. ITO, Faridabad passed in (AY 2009-10) dated 26.6.2016, the addition in dispute is deleted and accordingly, the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee stands allowed.
With regard to ground no. 4 relating to charging of interest u/s. 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are concerned, the same are consequential in nature, hence, need not be adjudicated.