RURA RAM BIROK,HISAR vs. ITO, WARD-4, HISAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2805/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 June 2023AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding the sale consideration of the immovable property and the joint nature of the bank account.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a significant amount of cash into his savings bank account, which could not be adequately explained to the Assessing Officer. The assessee claimed this cash was from the sale of a house by his wife, received through a General Power of Attorney (GPA).

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were adequately explained as sale proceeds from an immovable property sold by the assessee's wife, and whether the AO properly considered the evidence presented.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & DR. B.R.R.KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Kuldip Khera, CA
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Hearing: 22.06.2023Pronounced: 27.06.2023

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 27.09.2022.

2.

The assessee has raised following ground of appeal:-

1. “That the order passed by the Learned AO and confirmed by the Honorable CIT (A) is bad in law and against the facts placed on the file.

2. That the Learned AO erred in not considering the sale proceeds of House of Rs 29,00,000.00 out of which Rs 12,00,000.00 were received by cheque and Rs 17,00,000.00 was received in cash on 02.02.2011. The House was sold through GPA. The Honorable CIT(A) also erred in confirming the addition for want of sale deed. The learned AO and Honorable CIT(A) has erred in law in not treating the sale of house through GPA, which is duly registered with the Registration Authority, Hisar. Page | 1

3. That the Learned AO and Honorable CIT (A) also erred in not considering the fund flow without pointing out any mistake in the fund flow. The Honorable CIT(A) erred in not considering the cash withdrawn from Punjab National Bank saving bank account number 1451000100181523 in the joint name of Sh. R.R. Birok & Smt. Nanki Devi. After depositing the cheque of Rs. 12,00,000.00, the assessee has withdrawn Rs. 11,63,000.00 from his PNB saving account and has deposited Rs. 4,94,500.00 in this account.

4.

That the Honorable CIT (A) erred in not accepting the affidavit of Sh Mukand Lal S/o Sh Diwan Chand in whose favor GPA was also given by the assessee wife. He further erred in not considering the other supporting documents to prove the genuineness of sale of house. 5. The assessee crave to add, alter, amend any of the grounds of appeal

before the appeal is heard or finally disposed off.” [

3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee has filed return of income declaring an income of INR 1,83,670/- on 30.03.2013. As per AIR information, the assessee has deposited cash of INR 2,187,000/- in his saving bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. The assessee could not explain the source of the cash deposits made by him therefore, proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) were initiated against the assessee.

4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee was re-opened on the basis of cash deposited in the bank account and Page | 2 adequate opportunity was not given to the assessee by the Assessing Authority. He further submitted that the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the bank account was jointly held with his wife and immovable property was sold by his wife. The sale consideration was deposited in the joint account of the assessee. He further reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions.

7.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below.

8.

We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Considering the facts that before the lower authorities, the assessee had furnished some evidences related to the sale of immovable property by the wife of the assessee vis-a-vis the bank account statement. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts, we hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of Jurisdictional AO to verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee that the money was deposited out of the sale consideration received on sale of immovable property by the wife of the assessee and also the account was held jointly by the assessee and his wife. Grounds raised by the assessee are thus, allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th June, 2023.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →