$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of Decision: 05.04.2018

+      ITA 815/2017

       VIDIT JAIN                                 ..... Appellant
                         Through:     Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Pranjal Srivastava
                                      and Ms. Devina Sharma, Advocates.

                         versus

       INCOME TAX OFFICER                  ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing
                    Counsel and Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing
                    Counsel for Revenue.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1.     This is an assessee's appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 ("the Act") complaining that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's
order (ITAT's order) is perverse and unreasonable.

2.     The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of
6,92,424/- consisting of salary, rental, interest and dividend income. Notice
under Section 143(2) with questionnaire was issued. During the course of
assessment proceedings, the assessee was called to submit the details
regarding cash deposited by the assessee in his bank accounts. In response,
the assessee submitted that cash deposited in the bank account represents



ITA 815/2017                                           Page 1 of 4
redeposit of the cash withdrawn from the bank account; it was also
explained that there was a payment from the tenants in the form of rent and
security and the opening cash in hand brought forward from preceding
financial year, which was the source of such cash deposits. He also
explained that he had received cash gift of aggregating 7,70,000/- from his
in-laws on the occasion of birth of his first son. In support of its contention,
the assessee furnished the cash flow statement giving the date wise deposit
and withdrawal in the banks accounts and evidences in support thereof. The
AO did not accept this explanation and added the aggregate of the credit side
of the cash deposit of 37,87,690/- under Section 68 of the Act as
unexplained credit. The assessment accordingly was completed on an
income of 42,79,260/- (as against returned income 6,92,424/-).
Aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed
the appeal of the assessee accepting his contention with regard to opening
balance of cash in hand of 2,15,454/- and granting relief up to that extent.
However the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO in making addition of
aggregate of the cash deposit in the bank account ignoring the cash
withdrawal from the bank. The further appeal by the assessee, to the ITAT,
however, was unsuccessful.

3.     Mr. Ved Jain, learned counsel submitted that the addition of
30,72,236/- consists of aggregate of all cash deposits made by the assessee
during the year under consideration in the bank account with Punjab
National Bank. A detailed cash chart was furnished by the assessee where
the source of these cash deposits were fully explained and throughout the
year the assessee had positive cash balance before the deposit in the bank








ITA 815/2017                                             Page 2 of 4
account. Every entry in the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee
was supported by bank statements submitted by him. The assessee had an
opening cash in hand of 2,15,454/-. The assessee had withdrawn the total
sum of 25,75,311/- cash during the year. As against the above, the assessee
had deposited a total sum of 27,42,490/- in the bank account during the
year. Thus the deposits in the bank account were out of withdrawals made in
cash from the account. A sum of 7,70,000 was deposited being the gift
received in cash from in-laws. With regard to this cash gift (of  7,70,000/-
counsel submitted that it was received on 10.03.2010, from his in-laws on
the occasion of birth of his first son on 01.03.2010. Further the assessee had
submitted evidence to prove the creditworthiness of the donors such as
affidavit of the Sh. Subhash Chandra Sanghai, father-in-law of the assessee
wherein he has explained the detailed background of the gifts and the
circumstances under which gifts were made by him and his close family
members, the occasion of gifts etc. Besides the affidavit, he has also
provided various documents explaining the financial worth of the family in
the form of balance sheet of the company where the family has the
controlling and exclusive interest. However, ignoring these contentions and
without appreciating the assessee's evidence, the ITAT upheld the order of
CIT(A). Since it failed to take cognizance of the evidence and materials filed
by the assessee, urged counsel, its findings are perverse.

4.     At the outset, this court notices that the assessee's submissions with
respect to the additions made under Section 68 were urged consistently
before all revenue authorities; equally consistently, the revenue authorities
rejected this explanation, with the exception of the CIT (A) who granted







ITA 815/2017                                             Page 3 of 4
relief on a small aspect. This court is of the opinion that the findings
impugned are entirely factual and fall within the exclusive domain of the
revenue adjudicating and appellate authorities.

5.     For the foregoing reasons, the Court is of the opinion that no
substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed.


                                                  S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J



                                                        A. K. CHAWLA, J
APRIL 05, 2018




ITA 815/2017                                           Page 4 of 4