sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 ITO Coy. Ward – 11(3) Room No. 420D C. R. Building New Delhi vs. Hi Life Exports (P) Ltd. Ward – 191, A, Ekta Marg, Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi -110062
 Sh. Pradip Kumar Khator 1080, First Floor, Sector-46, Gurgaon, Haryana. vs ITO Ward 3(3), Gurgaon
 Sh. Jai Prakash 261, Block E-19, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi. vs ITO Ward 39(5), New Delhi.
 Vikram Krishnan vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
 ITO vs. Synergy Finlease Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
 Sir Mohd. Yusuf Trust vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 NuPower Renewables Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 CIT vs. Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)
 ITO, Ward-271(1),Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi vs. M/s. B2B Management, 5/47, Shyam Singh Street, Gopi Nath, New Delhi
 Shri Opinder Singh Virk Pravesh Kumar Sharma, R/o 493- L, Model Town, Karnal. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Karnal.
 SplendorLandbase Ltd., Splendor Forum, 502-511 Plot No 3, Jasola District Centre,New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3, New Delhi.

Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa, 43, Pusa Road, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-33(4), New Delhi
February, 01st 2019
                      INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                        DELHI BENCH "F": NEW DELHI
                BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                   AND
              SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                             ITA No. 1651/Del/2015
                           (Assessment Year: 2011-12)
          Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa,        Vs.            ITO,
               43, Pusa Road,                       Ward-33(4),
                  New Delhi                          New Delhi
             PAN: AAAPW3882G
                 (Appellant)                       (Respondent)


               Assessee by :                    Shri Ashish Goel, CA
                Revenue by:                   Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
              Date of Hearing                        18/12/2018
           Date of pronouncement                     31/01/2019


                                    ORDER

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1.   This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld
     Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, New Delhi dated 16/01/2015
     for assessment year 2011-12 passed ex parte,          wherein, the following
     grounds of appeal were raised:-
     "1.     On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the
             learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad,
             both in the eye of law and on facts.
     2.      On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has
             erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the order without giving
             assessee an opportunity of being heard in clear violation of principle
             of natural justice.
     3.      On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
             erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of an
             amount of Rs.66,72,000/- made by AO on account of deposits in
             bank account.
     4.      On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
             erred, both on facts and in law, in ignoring the fact that the amount
             of Rs.66,72,000/- includes an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- which was
             deposited in bits and pieces belonging to the mother of the
             assessee.


                                                                            Page | 1
                                                      Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa Vs. ITO,
                                                                ITA No. 1651/Del/2015
                                                           (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

     5.   On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
          erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of an
          amount of Rs.1,75,02,000/- made by AO on account of deposits in
          bank account, Syndicate Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
     6.   On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
          erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of an
          amount of Rs.41,733/- made by AO on account of bank interest.
     7.   On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
          erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of an
          amount of Rs.6,72,834/- made by AO on account of bank interest.
     8.   (i)   That the above addition has been confirmed ignoring the fact
          that the amount of Rs.4,55,000/- is interest earned on FDR of Sh.
          Jatinder Wadhwa, brother of the assessee, 's such no addition can
          be made in assessee's hand.
          (ii)  That the above addition tantamount to double addition, as the
          same amount has been declared and included as income by Sh.
          Jatinder Wadhwa in his return of income.
     9.   On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
          erred, both on facts and in law, in ignoring the fact that the amount
          of Rs.6,72,834/- includes Rs.63,000/- being added by the assessee
          in his computation of income, the said addition tantamount to
          double addition."







2.   The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual who filed
     his return of income on 12-12-2017 of Rs. 479985/-.        In the return of
     income the assessee disclosed the business income, capital gain and
     other sources. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and it was
     noted that as per AIR the assessee has deposited cash in the savings
     bank account with Syndicate Bank of Rs. 18247000/-. The assessee
     explained that cash of deposit of Rs. 11575000/- was given to him by his
     brother who is staying in USA after withdrawing the same from his non-
     resident account during the course of his visit in India. The assessee
     submitted the confirmation and copy of the bank account of his brother.
     The assessee further submitted that Rs. 20 lacs was lying with his mother
     till her death and that money was also given to him by                brother
     assessee.   This was supported by the affidavit of the brother of the
     assessee. The ld AO granted the credit of the sum given by his brother

                                                                             Page | 2
                                                      Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa Vs. ITO,
                                                                ITA No. 1651/Del/2015
                                                           (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

     out of total cash deposit of Rs 18247000/- and made the addition of Rs.
     6672000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Further addition was also made u/s 68 of
     the act on account of cash deposits by the assessee in another account .
     During the course of assessment proceedings it was noted that the
     assessee has another account with the Syndicate Bank in which cash
     deposit of Rs. 17502000/- was made. The ld AO was not replied to this
     query by   assessee and therefore same was added u/s 68 of the Act.
     Therefore, ld AO has made two additions of cash deposited in two
     different bank accounts of the assessee with Syndicate bank of Rs.
     6672000/- and Rs. 17502000/- respectively. The assessment u/s 143(3)
     was made on 28-02-2018 determining total income of Rs. 25368722/-.
     The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who dismissed the
     appeal of the assessee on merits but ex parte.   Therefore, the assessee
     is in appeal before us.
3.   The ld AR submitted a detailed paper book.        He submitted that the
     assessee submitted a detailed reply vide page No. 12 and 13 of the paper
     book with respect to the cash deposit of Rs. 18247000/-. It was
     submitted that sum of Rs. 11575000/- was received from Mr. Jatinder
     Wadhwa, Rs 20 lacs from his mother and further Rs. 8573343/- from his
     brother only. This explanation is neither being considered by the ld AO
     and by the ld CIT(A) with respect to the cash deposit of Rs. 17502000/-.
     the assessee has also submitted the cash deposit as per page No. 20 of
     its written submission but he further submitted that at page No. 25 the
     bank passbook of the brother    of assessee is submitted wherein, it is
     apparent that assessee has withdrawn cash in earlier years. He further
     referred to the certificate of Syndicate Bank wherein it has been stated
     that Rs. 8573343.10 has been transferred from savings bank account of
     Shri Jatinder Wadhwa to the savings bank account of the assessee. He
     therefore, stated that all these evidences have not been considered by
     the lower authorities.



                                                                             Page | 3
                                                       Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa Vs. ITO,
                                                                 ITA No. 1651/Del/2015
                                                            (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

4.   Ld DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and
     submitted that when the assessee has not submitted any details before
     the lower authorities the additions has been rightly made and confirmed.
5.   Ld AR in rejoinder submitted that the ld CIT(A)      has also decided the
     issue ex parte and without considering the submission on record.             He
     stated that even otherwise the ld CIT(A) has decided this issue without
     granting proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.       He referred to
     para No. 4 of the order of the ld CIT(A) and stated that the appeal of the
     assessee has been decided stating that assessee is not interested in
     pursuing the appeal. Even otherwise the order of ld CIT(A) is ex parte
     and therefore reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee should
     have been granted.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. The AO has made the addition on account of cash deposit in two Syndicate bank accounts of the assessee. The partly relief is given by the ld AO on account of cash deposit by brother of the assessee who is a non-resident Indian. However, with respect to the other bank accounts in which cash is deposited of Rs. 17502000/-, it was stated by the ld AO that assessee has not given any explanation. Ld AO has also decided the appeal of the assessee ex parte. Before us assessee has submitted a detailed paper book wherein the assessee has submitted the details of the cash deposited during the year in both the accounts along with explanation of deposit received from his brother . It has further submitted the copy of the passbook of the brother of assessee where earlier cash was withdrawn of substantial sum from the bank account. The Syndicate bank account of the assessee also received a credit of Rs. 8573343/- on 21-8-2017 source of which is also certified by the Sr. Manager of the Syndicate Bank as received from his brother. It is apparent that above sum is not a cash deposit but it is a transfer. The ld AO considered the same as cash deposit. Further, with respect to the sum of Rs. 20 lacs the assessee has also submitted an affidavit of his Page | 4 Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa Vs. ITO, ITA No. 1651/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) brother who has given him Rs. 20 lacs. As this fact have not been verified by the lower authorities and in view of the ex-parte order of the ld CIT(A), we set aside the whole issue back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to submit the complete details and the explanation before him within two months from the date of the order and then the ld CIT(A) may examine the details and explanation submitted, then decide the issue afresh after granting proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of the above facts appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction for statistical purposes. 7. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2019. -Sd/- -Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:31/01/2019 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Page | 5
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Customer relationship management software CRM software Operational CRM Collaborative CRM

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions