Neeru Gugnani,1039/23, DLF Colony,Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward 2,Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak
October, 28th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "SMC-2": NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 2060/Del/2014
A.Y. : 2006-07
Neeru Gugnani, vs. ITO, Ward 2,
1039/23, DLF Colony, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak
(PAN : AAQPG6825M)
Assessee by : Sh. Arun Kumar Jain, Adv.
Department by : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 26-10--2015
Date of Order : 26-10-2015
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Rohtak, dated 13.2.2014 pertaining to
assessment year 2006-07.
2. The grounds of appeal read as under:-
1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against facts and is bad in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO in
making an addition of Rs. 9,50,000/- to the income of the
3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any
ground fo appeal at the time of its hearing.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the original return
declaring income of Rs. 1,28,160/- on 18-07-2006. Later on the case was taken
up for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) dated 29-06-2007 was issued
and duly served upon the assessee. In response to this Shri M.P.Gugnani,Advocate
and husband of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings. As per the
CASS details the assessee had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 35,02,640/-
in her IndusInd bank account during the year under consideration. The assessment
was completed u/s 143(3) of the I,T.Act, 1961 on 25-12-2008 at a total income of
Rs.10,78,160/- as the source of cash deposits of Rs.9,50,000/- remained
unexplained. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., assessee went in appeal before
Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 31-12-2009 dismissed the appeal of the
assessee. Again, aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee further preferred
appeal before ITAT, New Delhi. The ITAT in ITA No. 636/Del/2010 dated 23-07-
2010 remitted the matter to the file of AO with the direction to have detailed
enquiry into the genuineness of the transaction by calling the witnesses in whose
presence the agreement was signed. The ITAT further directed the AO to call the
legal heirs of Shri Bijender Pal Singh and to look into the circumstances under which
the transaction was cancelled and money was refunded back by the assessee to
Shri Bijender Pal Singh. Keeping in view the order of ITAT, notice u/s 143(2) of the
Act was issued to the assessee on 27-06-2011 fixing the case for 19-07-2011. In
response to this notice Shri M.P.Gugnani, Advocate and husband of the assessee
filed a written reply dated 19-07-2011 of the asssessee. Again the Assessee was
asked some information by the AO vide notice u/s. 142(1) dated 1.11.2011 and
assessee again replied the same on 8.11.2011. Further, a notice dated 7.12.2011
was issued to the assessee u/s. 142(1) and assesssee replied the same vide reply
dated 16.12.2011. On going through the replies, the AO observed that Statement
of the witnesses Shri Mahender Pal Singh and Shri Sunil Kumar Jain were recorded
to establish the genuineness of the transaction entered into by Smt, Neeru Gugnani
with Shri Bijender Pal Singh for sale of property 1039123, DLF Colony, Rohtak.
Meanwhile summons were also issued to Shri Tribhuvan son and legal heir of Shri
Bijender Pal Singh S/o Thakur Jagmal Singh Village Samar Gopal Pur, Rohtak on
01-12-2011 & 14-12-2011 for 08-12-2011 and 20-12-2011 respectively. It was
further observed by the AO that Shri Tribhuvan, the legal heir of Shri Bijender Pal
Singh attended the office on 16-12-2011 in response to the summons issued. His
statement was recorded. In his statement he has categorically denied of having
transaction entered into by his father Shri Bijender Pal Singh with Smt.Neeru
Gugnani on 30-06-2005 for the purchase of so called plot NO.1039/23 at DLF
Colony, Rohtak. He further revealed that his father was suffering from lever disease
and was admitted in Shri Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi for the period of 18
months prior to his demise. Copy of death certificate of Shri Bijender Pal Singh has
also been filed by Shri Tribhuvan which is placed on record. Shri Bijender Pal
according to his son expired on 25-12-2007. Shri Tribhuvan was shown the copy of
the agreement dated 30-06-2005 entered into by assessee with Shri Bijender Pal
for the sale of plot at DLF Colony, Rohtak and was also shown agreement for
cancelling the said deal entered on 15-11-2007. He again categorically stated that
the signatures of his father Shri Bijender Pal Singh on both the agreements are fake
and does not match with the actual signature of his father. Copy of two Identity
Cards of Shri Bijender Pal Singh bearing his signature was filed by Shri Tribhuvan
which is placed on record. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and
material available on record AO observed that it is quite evident that the said
transactions regarding sale of property by the assessee to Shri Bijender Pal Singh is
a concocted story woven to fit into the scheme of thing so as to cover up her
unaccounted money in the garb of cash deposits made into the bank on different
dates during the year under consideration. AO completed the assessment vide his
order dated 22.12.2011 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, and treated the sum of
Rs.9,50,000/- deposited in the above said bank on different dates as unexplained
and added back to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources.
4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred an
appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order 13.2.2014 has dismissed
the appeal of the Assessee.
5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee draw my attention
towards the Agreement dated 30.6.2005 made between Smt. Neeru Gugnani,
W/o Shri Mahinder Pal Gugnani, S/o Shri Nihal Chand which is at pages 2 & 3 of
the Paper Book. He stated that these documents proved that Assessee has received
Rs. 15 lacs from Sh. Bijender Pal Singh, S/o Thakur Jagmal Singh on the sale of
property in dispute, but due to some reasons this agreement could not be
materialized and both the parties cancelled this agreement vide Cancellation Deed
dated 15.11.2007 and returned the said money to Sh. Bijender Pal Singh. The said
Cancellation Deed is also attached at Page Nos. 4 to 7 of the Paper Book.
Therefore, he requested that the addition in dispute may be deleted.
6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below
and opposed the request of the Assessee's Counsel.
7. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue
Authorities alongwith relevant records available with the Appeal filed. I also
perused the Agreement dated 30.6.2005 in which the assessee has received Rs. 15
lacs from Sh. Bajinder Pal Singh on account of sale of property and later on due to
some reasons cancelled the said Agreement vide Cancellation Deed dated
15.11.2007 and returned back the money in dispute to Sh. Bajinder Pal Singh.
Before me the assessee has attached all the documentary evidences in the shape of
Paper Book containing pages 1 to 22 in which he has attached the Bank Statement
of IndusInd Bank, Copy of Agreement dated 30.6.2005 at pages 2 & 3; copy of
Cancellation Deed dated 15.11.2007 at Page 4; Copy of Sale Deed at pages 5 to
9; copy of Death Certificate of Sh. Bajinder Pal Singh at page no. 10. On
perusing the aforesaid documentary evidences filed by the assessee in the shape of
Paper Book, I am of the considered view that Assessee has explained the source of
income. I further find that in compliance of the earlier Tribunal's order dated
30.7.2010 the witnesses of the agreement for the sale of property has already been
examined by the AO and they have admitted that assessee has received Rs. 15 lacs
from Sh. Bajinder Pal Singh who died on 25.12.2007, on account of sale of
property. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the addition of
Rs. 9,50,000/- made by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law and has been
wrongly added without corroborating any evidence including the evidences
produced by the assessee which is also contrary to law and facts of the case.
Therefore, the addition in dispute is not sustainable and is hereby deleted.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26/10/2015.
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT
TRUE COPY By Order,
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches