INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), PURULIA, PURULIA vs. RAJ KUMARI SHAH, PURULIA

ORDER Per Shri Balaganesh, AM:

This appeal by revenue is arising out of order of CIT(A), Asansol vide Appeal No. 314/CIT(A)Asl/W-3(4)/Asl/Pur/11-12 dated 31.05.2013. Assessment was framed by ITO, Wd-3(4), Purulia u/s. 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2009-10 vide his order dated 27.12.2011.

2 Raj Kumari Shah AY 2009-10 The Learned A.O during the course of scrutiny has asked for details of Indian Bank Savings Account bearing no. 539840776. The assessee has submitted all relevant documents with evidences showing that the said savings account was a Joint Savings Bank Account in the name of Smt Raj Kumari Shah and Smt Rita Bagaria. Smt Rita Bagaria is the only daughter of the assessee. Smt Rita Bagaria is regularly filing her Return of Income before the ITO, Ward-3(2), Purulia. The said Joint Savings Account as discussed above is duly shown in the Accounts Statement of Smt Rita Bagaria which is duly filed before the concerned ITO. The said Bank Account is actually of Smt Rita Bagaria. In this regard the Copy of Return filed along with the Accounts were produced and submitted before the Learned A.O. who has accepted the same in his letter dated 19/12/2011. The said Bank details are properly shown in the Joint Holder's Income Tax Statement who is the only daughter of the Smt Raj Kumari Shah who is suffering from various health ailments and is more or less bed ridden. The Medical Certificates in this regard were also submitted to the Learned Assessing Officer. Thus the Indian Bank Savings Account NO.539840776 along with the FDRs made through the said Bank Account in which the Ld A.O. has disallowed the total deposit for Rs.4244508/- are very genuine and are properly shown and declared before the department by the daughter. The Ld. A.O. has completely ignored the material facts on record and disallowed the same and added back the amount to the total income of the assessee. The Learned A.O has added back Rs.3,06,041/- being deposit in Indian Bank. It is worthwhile to mention here that when the Ld A.O. has added back total deposit of Savings Bank Account No.539840776 as stated earlier, it is very astonishing to see in the order that from where the said amount was derived by the Ld. A.O. There is no mention of such amount in the findings made by the A.O. in his order sheet. Thus the addition made in this regard is totally absurd and bogus. The Ld. A.O. has just made the addition of Rs.306041/- on his imagination without going through the facts and figures properly.

3 Raj Kumari Shah AY 2009-10 “5. The argument of appellant is that this bank account is continuously being accounted by Smt. Rita Bagaria. This has been stated before Assessing Officer and is mentioned in assessment order. He relied on the I. T. Return and accompanying statements of Smt. Rita Bagaria. The Assessing Officer took the stand that return of Smt. Rita Bagaria was not filled in, only computation part was filled in. The first enquiry regarding an SB account is as to who has accounted the same in trial Balance. I find that the conclusion drawn is based on incorrect facts by Assessing Officer since the SB account figures in the Trial Balance of Smt. Rita Bagaria. It is seen that the argument of the appellant is correct. Hence relief is due to the appellant.

7. Considering the aspects discussed in para 4 and 5, I delete the addition of Rs.42,44,508/-.

8. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.3,06,041/- being deposit in Indian Bank. The sum is already included in the above Rs.42,44,508/- and since the addition of Rs.42,44,508/- is deleted there is no reason to consider the addition. The same is deleted since the original addition of Rs.3,06,041/- itself is a double addition.”

Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- “

1. That the Ld. CIT(A), Asansol has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.42,44,508/- made by the AO on account of deposition of cash into Indian Bank, Purulia as the assessee could not substantiate that the amount has been deposited by 2nd name of the Jt. Bank Account holder.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A), Asansol has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.3,06,141/- made by the AO on account of deposition of cash into Indian Bank, Purulia as the assessee could not substantiate that the amount has been deposited by 2nd name of the Jt. Bank Account holder.”

4 Raj Kumari Shah AY 2009-10 considered in the return of income filed by the daughter which were also verified by the Learned AO from the jurisdictional AO of the daughter of the assessee.

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the detailed paper book filed by the Learned AR containing income tax returns , computation of total income and final accounts of assessee (Pgs 1 to 8 of PB) ; income tax returns , computation of total income and final accounts of Smt. Rita Bagaria (daughter) ( Pgs 9 to 11 of PB) ; Trial Balance of Smt. Rita Bagaria (pgs 12 to 14 of PB) ; Cash Book of Smt. Rita Bagaria (Pgs 15 to 20 of PB) ; Bank Book with Indian Bank Account of Smt. Rita Bagaria (Pgs 21 to 25 of PB) and Bank Statement of Indian Bank A/c No. 539840776 (Pgs 26 to 30 of PB). From the perusal of the same, we are convinced of the fact that the entire transactions in the joint bank account with Indian Bank A/c No. 539840776 have been duly considered in the returns filed by the daughter of the assessee. The Learned AO had even cross verified the income tax returns of daughter from the jurisdictional AO of Smt. Rita Bagaria (daughter). We find that the rejection of the contentions of the assessee by the AO on the flimsy ground that the return of income does not contain detailed annexures and hence the same could not be verified in detail is, in our opinion, is highly unjustified. The Learned AR even brought to our notice the relevant portion of the action points of return of income wherein the CBDT had clearly stated that the return form should not be accompanied by any enclosures showing (i) computation of tax payable or (ii) proof of any tax, if any, claimed to have been deducted or collected at source, or (iii) proof of tax, if any, claimed to have been paid by way of advance tax or self asst tax or (iv) any document or copy of any account or form, or (v) audit report u/s 44AB. The CBDT had further emphasized the need to ensure strict compliance of the same by directing the CCITs to inform the receiving officials to detach all the annexures filed by the assessee by returning back to the assessee at the time of collecting the returns. It is true that the Govt is working progressively to have a paperless regime, but at the same time, the same should not be used against the assessee for not filing the annexures along with the return of income. We find that the Learned CITA had given categorical findings that the entire credits in the Indian Bank account have been duly considered by Smt. Rita Bagaria with proper explainable sources and there is no case for making any addition in 5 Raj Kumari Shah AY 2009-10 the hands of the assessee in the sum of Rs. 42,44,508/-. He had also categorically held that an addition of Rs. 3,06,041/- is also included in the amount already added in the sum of Rs. 42,44,508/- and hence in any case would only result in double addition. Accordingly he had deleted the additions of Rs. 42,44,508/- and Rs. 3,06,041/-. The Learned DR had prayed for setting aside of this appeal to the file of the Learned AO for verification of returns of Smt. Rita Bagaria. We feel that this is not necessary as we are thoroughly convinced that the entire credits in the bank account have been duly considered in the hands of Smt. Rita Bagaria and it would not advance the case of the revenue in any manner. Hence we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CITA in this regard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.