GURINDER SINGH,KHARAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APEALS, DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 137/CHD/2024 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 बनाम Gurinder Singh, The ITO, Village Jhungian, Ward-6(1), Post office Jandpur Chandigarh Kharar-140301 �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CKYPS1280G अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) �नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Sharma, CA राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 20.08.2024 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.12.2023 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC).
The sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the confirmation of addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 35
ITA No. 137-Chd-2024 Gurinder Singh, Kharar 2 lacs on account to unaccounted deposits in the bank account of the Assessee.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') alleging that the Assessee made cash deposits in his bank account of Rs. 35 lacs, whereas, the Assessee has categorically stated before the Assessing Officer that no such cash was deposited by the Assessee in his bank account. The ld. Counsel has submitted that the reopening in this case was based on wrong assumption of facts, hence, the same is bad in law.
The ld. Counsel has further submitted that during the application, the Assessing Officer noted that there was no cash deposit of Rs. 35 lacs as alleged, however, there was a transfer of amount of Rs. 35 lacs through banking mode, i.e,. RTGS from one Sh. Pritpal Singh. The ld. Counsel has further invited our attention to the relevant part of the assessment order to submit that it was duly explained to the Assessing Officer that the said amount was repayable advance which was taken by the Assessee from Shri Pritpal Singh. That there was no explanation or query raised by the Assessing Officer thereafter on this issue and the Assessing Officer
ITA No. 137-Chd-2024 Gurinder Singh, Kharar 3 simply confirmed the addition by observing that the said amount was withdrawn by the Assessee and the reasons for withdrawal of the same has not been given. The ld. Counsel have further invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that it was also duly explained before the CIT(A) that the said advance taken from Shri Pritpal Singh was returned back by the Assessee on 16.5.2016 through RTGS. Further, it was also explained before the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer never asked the Assessee to explain about the said transaction. It was also explained that the allegation that the said amount was used for / going to be utilized for the Company, i.e., M/s Seabird International Provision. Ltd. was also wrong. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that the said amount of Rs. 35 lacs was not the income of the Assessee.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the findings of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. In this case, the assessment was reopened on the ground that the Assessee has entered into financial transaction amounting to Rs. 35,45,500/- which was not in consonance with the income shown in the Income tax return of the Assessee. This reason itself, in our view, cannot be a reason to believe that the income of the
ITA No. 137-Chd-2024 Gurinder Singh, Kharar 4 Assessee has escaped assessment. This information of transfer of amount of Rs. 36,45,500/- was obtained by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of verification of high-risk cases. This type of information may be taken into account and can be used for assessment purposes or for selection of cases for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act, however, this information is not enough to form the belief that the income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. It has been held time and again that every deposit in the bank account in itself does not give presumption that the same is unaccounted income of the Assessee, in the absence of any corroborative evidence or information. Moreover, the Assessing Officer without going through the accounts of the Assessee, simply on the basis of information on the insight portal, assumed that there was a cash deposit of Rs. 35 lacs in the bank account of the Assessee, whereas, there was no such cash deposit in the bank account of the Assessee except the aforesaid transaction of transfer of amount of Rs. 35 lacs by Shri Pritpal Singh through RTGS. Therefore, reopening in this case was based on wrong facts and borrowed satisfaction without co-relating the said information with the accounts of the Assessee. Therefore, the same falls short of the reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. Moreover, the Assessee has duly explained that the said amount of Rs. 35 lacs was
ITA No. 137-Chd-2024 Gurinder Singh, Kharar 5 transferred to this account by one Shri Pritpal Singh as unsecured loan which has been returned by the Assessee to said Shri Pritpal Singh through RTGS only.
Under the circumstances, the addition, in our view, is not sustainable as per law and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands allowed. 8.
Order pronounced on 23.08.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SANJAY GARG) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 23 08.2024 “आर.के.” आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�त/ CIT 4. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यआ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड�फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
