Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI G.C. GUPTA & SHRI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT SHRI SHRI
PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA, VP PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA , VP , VP : , VP This appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2009-10 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A), Rohtak dated 18th July, 2014.
Ground No.1 to 3 of the Revenue’s appeal are as under:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition amounting to Rs.13,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained credit entries in the bank account.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidence U/R 46A without affording opportunity to the AO. Ld.CIT(A) has passed one line dictate saying “in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the additional evidence has 2 ITA-5295/Del/2014
been admitted in terms of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules”. This is in violation of rule 46A(2).
3. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that by surrendering the amount vide letter dated 28.11.2011, assessee prevented the department from making enquiries and therefore has availed a benefit by taking that position. The assessee can not be allowed to change this position afterwards.”
Learned DR submitted that the assessee has credited an amount of `13 lakhs in her bank account and could not satisfactorily explain the source thereof before the Assessing Officer with documentary evidence and has agreed to offer the amount of `13 lakhs to tax during assessment proceedings. He submitted that the assessee could not prove that the assessee has received a loan of `13 lakhs and, therefore, the loan of `13 lakhs remains unexplained and was rightly treated as unexplained income and added u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He referred to the relevant portion of the assessment order in support of the case of the Revenue.
The learned representative of the assessee has opposed the submissions of the learned DR. He submitted that the offer of surrender of `13 lakhs during assessment proceedings was coupled with a condition that it shall be subject to no penal action. He submitted that the offer itself was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as he has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this amount and, therefore, the assessee has to file an appeal before the first appellate authority, i.e., the CIT(A). He submitted that learned CIT(A) has called for the remand report and, in the remand report, it was admitted that the identity proof and bank statement of the lender was produced by the assessee. He submitted that the money has come from the joint bank account of Smt. Mansa Devi and Sujata. Smt. Mansa Devi was aged 80 years of age and could not be 3 ITA-5295/Del/2014 produced and therefore, her daughter Sujata appeared before the Assessing Officer and accepted that she has advanced a loan of `13 lakhs to the assessee. He submitted that the copy of the bank account of the lender Smt. Mansa Devi and Sujata was also filed before the Assessing Officer and therefore, there was enough proof of the identity and creditworthiness of the lender. He submitted that the assessee is a widow and was a bank employee and the lender Smt. Mansa Devi and Sujata were assessee’s family friends and it is for the first time in the life of the assessee that she has to take money on loan due to adverse circumstances. He relied on the order of the learned CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A). We find that learned CIT(A) has called for a remand report in this case. The assessee has pleaded throughout that money came from the joint bank account of Smt. Mansa Devi and Sujata. Smt. Mansa Devi being an aged lady of 80 years could not be produced and her daughter Sujata did appear before the Assessing Officer and she has admitted the fact of loan given to the assessee. It has been claimed by the assessee that it has filed the copy of the bank account of Smt. Mansa Devi and Sujata, which could not be controverted on behalf of the Revenue. The identity and creditworthiness of the lender are proved by filing the copy of the joint bank account of Smt. Mansa Devi and Sujata and their identity has not been doubted by the Revenue. The CIT(A) has recorded in his appellate order that in the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer dated 29.03.2014, it was admitted that the identity proof and bank statement of the lender was produced. In these facts of the case, since the loan amount of `13 lakhs received by the assessee has been confirmed by the lender and who has filed the documentary evidence of the source thereof by filing the copy of joint bank account of Smt. Mansa Devi and Sujata and has filed their
4 ITA-5295/Del/2014 identity proof, we find that there is no material brought on record on behalf of the Revenue to suggest that the transaction of loan to the assessee was not genuine. There being no mistake in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue, the same is confirmed and ground Nos.1 to 3 of the Revenue’s appeal are dismissed.
Ground No.4 of the Revenue’s appeal reads as under:-
“On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs.70,000/- made by AO on account of the unexplained cash deposits without appreciating that assessee has been changing her stand and her explanation is without any support.”
We have heard the parties. The case of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) was that the Assessing Officer has not enquired the facts properly and has misjudged himself and that the bank account in question was a joint account of the assessee with her mother-in-law Smt. Misri Devi and that the nexus between the withdrawals and deposits was evident with the bank statement which was furnished before the Assessing Officer. There being no material to controvert the explanation of the assessee, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition and his order on this issue is confirmed. Ground No.4 is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 6th October, 2015.