Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Shri Rajesh Kumar, VPO Barauli, vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panipat
April, 11th 2019
            IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                DELHI BENCH `SMC', NEW DELHI
            Before Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member

       ITA No. 6431/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10
Shri Rajesh Kumar,                    Vs    Income Tax Officer,
VPO Barauli,                                Ward-5,
Panipat-132103                              Panipat
(APPELLANT)                                 (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AVTPK3761G
                     Assessee by : Sh. S. Krishna, Adv.
                     Revenue by : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 04.04.2019           Date of Pronouncement: 11.04.2019


                                      ORDER
      Thi s i s an appeal fil ed by the assessee agai nst the orde r of
CIT(A), Karnal dated 24.07.2018.


2.    The assessee has rai sed foll owi ng grounds of appeal :
     " 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and
     in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO ' s order dated
     15.12.20 16, ret urning perverse findi ngs of fact, which are
     contrary to the eviden ce as be fore h e r.

     2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in
     law, the CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition u/s.69 in a
     sum of Rs.8,75, 000.

     The Assess ee s eek s leave to add to, forego, alter, or
     otherwise modify all or any of the grounds of appeal as
     raised herein. "

3.    The    sol e    i ssue   i nvol ved   in   thi s   appeal   is   that   the
Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) erred i n confi rmi ng the
addi ti on of Rs.8,75,000/- u/s 69 of the Act.







4.    The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed
that the assessee has invested Rs.8,75,000/- in purchasing a property
                                       2                        ITA No. 6431/Del/2018
                                                                      Rajesh Kumar

valued Rs.33,25,000/- with other co-parcenors during the during the year
under consideration. The share of the assessee was 1/5th of the total
investment. However, the assessee did not file any return of income u/s 139
of the Act. Therefore, he asked the assessee to explain source of the funds for
making investment in the property. The assessee explained that the source of
the investment was the amount received from his mother who had received
maturity proceeds of fixed deposit amounting to Rs.7,10,000/- on 26.06.2016
and the balance amount of Rs.1,65,000/- was the agricultural income earned
by the assessee.


5.     The Assessing Officer observed that the property was purchased on
05.06.2008 and amount of Rs.7,10,000/- was withdrawn on 26.07.2007 i.e. a
year   in   advance   and   hence,   correlating   withdrawal    with    purchase
consideration was not proved by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also
observed that no agricultural income was shown in the return of income and
nor was there any ownership of agricultural land. Hence, he added
Rs.8,75,000/- to the income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act.


6.     On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the
action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no evidence
linking the funds with the explanation in terms of FD of the mother of the
appellant and the stated agricultural income.


7.     The Authorized Representative of the assessee during the course of
hearing filed before me copy of the saving bank account with Canara Bank
being A/c No. 6261 of the mother of the assessee. From this he pointed out
that on 03.06.2007, there was a credit by the bank of Rs.7,07,278/- towards
maturity proceeds of FDR. He pointed out that from this account, there was
withdrawal on 26.06.2007 of Rs.7,10,000/-. He further filed bank account of
the assessee with State Bank of India being A/c No.10086200392 from where
it was pointed out that on 26.06.2007 there was deposit of Rs.7,10,000/-.
Thereafter, the assessee issued cheque of Rs.8,75,000/- on 27.06.2007 on
                                     3                      ITA No. 6431/Del/2018
                                                                  Rajesh Kumar

this bank account and made payment of Rs.8,75,000/- towards property.
Thus, it was a submission that the source of investment in the property was
explained by filing all the necessary evidences and therefore, addition made
was not justified.


8.    On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the
orders of the lower authorities.


9.    We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower
authorities and the material available on record. In the instant case, the
Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has purchased a property in
which he is the owner of 1/5th of share and paid purchase consideration of
Rs.8,75,000/- towards his share in the property. The Assessing Officer was
not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and made addition of
Rs.8,75,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had
withdrawn the amount of Rs.7,10,000/- from the mother's account for
purchase of property one year before it cannot be said that the cash
withdrawal was same which was deposited in the account of the assessee.


10.   On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the
action of the Assessing Officer.


11.   Before me, the Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted
that the observation of the Assessing Officer that withdrawal of cash of
Rs.7,10,000/- from the mother's account was one year prior to the purchase
of the property is factually incorrect as it will be observed from the bank
account of the mother with Canara Bank that the amount was withdrawn on
26.06.2007 and was deposited in the bank account of the assessee on the
very same day as will be seen from the bank account of the assessee with
State Bank of India.






12.   The Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower
authorities.
                                        4                        ITA No. 6431/Del/2018
                                                                       Rajesh Kumar

13.     We find that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.8,75,000/- in
the hands of the assessee on the ground that registered sale deed by
which the assessee purchased property co-jointly with others was
registered on 05.06.2008 which falls in the previous year relevant to the
assessment years 2009-10.

14.     A perusal of the said registered sale deed at page 3 thereof shows
that Rs.8,75,000/- was paid vide cheque no. 634101 drawn on State Bank
of India, Kishanpura, Panipat. Further perusal of the assessee's bank
statement maintained with State Bank of India, Kishanpura, Panipat being
savings bank A/c No. 00000010086200392 shows that the said cheque
was paid by the assessee on 27.06.2007.

15.     Thus, it is observed that the assessee paid consideration of
Rs.8,75,000/- on 27.06.2007 i.e. during the previous year relevant to the
assessment year 2008-09. No material has been brought before me to
show that the assessee made payment of Rs.8,75,000/- during the
assessment year under consideration. In the above circumstances, I find
no justification for making addition of Rs.8,75,000/- during the year under
consideration. Therefore, the addition of Rs.8,75,000/- is hereby deleted.

16.      In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
 (Order Pron ounced i n the Open Court on 11/04/2019).


                                                                 Sd/-
                                                       (N. S. Saini)
                                                    Accountant Member
Dated: 11/04/2019
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                                    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting