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

Mr. Sathappan Visvanathan 408, Sarvapriya Apartments Sarvapriya Vihar New Delhi 110 016 vs. ACIT Circle- 42(1) New Delhi
June, 10th 2019
                    IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                         DELHI BENCH: `C' NEW DELHI

                BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
                                     AND
                  MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                I.T.A. No. 2877/DEL/2016
                                      A.Y 2010-11

        Mr. Sathappan Visvanathan              Vs    ACIT
        408, Sarvapriya Apartments                   Circle- 42(1)
        Sarvapriya Vihar                             New Delhi
        New Delhi 110 016

        PAN: AABPV8025B

                 (Appellant)                          (Respondent)

                   Appellant by      Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. &
                                     Sh. P.N. Shastri, C.A.
                   Respondent by     Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr.D.R.

                    Date of Hearing             04.06.2019
                    Date of Pronouncement        07.06.2019

                                      ORDER
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM


        This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 11/03/2016
passed by the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2010-11.


2.      The grounds of appeal are as under:-
     "1. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- on
     account of cash deposited in bank ignoring the cash drawings plus the Credit
     Card drawings and other factors.

      2. That the appellant seeks    leave to add to, alter, amend, abandon or
     substitute any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of appeal."
                                                      ITA No. 2877/Del/2019 A.Y. 2010-11
                                                       Mr.Sathappan Visvanathan vs. ACIT



3.    The assessee is a Vice President in M/s GE Capital Services India and
derives salary income and also derives rental income from house property,
STCG, LTCG on sale of shares and interest income from FDRs and savings
bank accounts. The return of income was electronically filed on 30.07.2010
declaring income of Rs.1,33,47,240/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 09.05.2011. The case was selected for scrutiny
under CASS and initial statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(`the Act') on 22.9.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. The C.A.
and Authorized Representative of the assessee attended the assessment
proceedings from time to time and filed the details which were examined by the
Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made various additions including the
addition of Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of unexplained cash deposits.







4.    Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before
the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.


5.    The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of
Rs.2,50,000/- on account of cash deposited in bank ignoring the cash
drawings plus credit card drawings for which documentary evidence was
produced before the Assessing Officer.    The Ld. AR demonstrated from the
paper book that the details of cash withdrawals was before the Assessing
Officer which was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer as well as by
the CIT(A). The Ld. AR also submitted the Cash Flow Statement for F.Y. 2009-
10 i.e. A.Y. 2010-11. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee being
salaried employee in the normal circumstances does not require preparing and
maintaining the statement of affairs.      Further the assessee being a Sr.
Executive was required to travel extensively and thus could not get them
prepared in a short time. The assessee is a single man and is having a house
and car perquisites besides the usual facility of phone etc. The Ld. AR further
submitted that being an Executive, he meets most of his personal expenses
                                                                                      2
                                                      ITA No. 2877/Del/2019 A.Y. 2010-11
                                                       Mr.Sathappan Visvanathan vs. ACIT

through credit cards.      His drawings through credit cards other than cash
withdrawals was to the extent of Rs.10,38,356/-, which is sufficiently large for
his usual expenses. The assessee maintains a reasonably large cash balance as
he is required to undertake extensive travel and may require it, the details of
which has been given to the revenue authorities during the Assessment
Proceedings and before the CIT(A). Thus the Ld. AR submitted the Assessing
Officer as well as the CIT(A) was not correct in making addition as unexplained
cash deposits.


6.    The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and order of the Ld.CIT(A).


7.    We have heard both the parties and perused all the material available on
record.   The finding of the CIT(A) that withdrawals were only nominal does not
appears to be correct after going through the evidences produced before the
Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). In fact, the assessee in a year
has withdrawn more than Rs.10 lakhs. This crucial factor has been overlooked
by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). The details filed by assessee
during the assessment proceedings and before the CIT(A) itself speaks that the
cash deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- is from the said cash withdrawals which was
made for Travelling expenses of the assessee for his official duty as an
employee of M/s GE Capital Services India. Therefore, the CIT(A) as well as the
Assessing Officer were not correct in making such additions. Thus, appeal of
the assessee is allowed.







8.    In result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
          Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th        June, 2019.
                 Sd/-                                           Sd/-
  (G. D. AGRAWAL)                                        (SUCHITRA KAMBLE)
 VICE PRESIDENT                                           JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 07/06/2019
*Gmv


                                                                                      3
                                                            ITA No. 2877/Del/2019 A.Y. 2010-11
                                                             Mr.Sathappan Visvanathan vs. ACIT

Copy   forwarded to:
1.      Appellant
2.      Respondent
3.      CIT
4.      CIT(Appeals)
5.      DR: ITAT




                                                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                                            ITAT NEW DELHI




                                             Date
Draft dictated on                            04/06/19
Draft placed before author                   07/06/19

Draft proposed & placed before the second
member
Draft discussed/approved by Second
Member.
Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS
Kept for pronouncement on                     07/06/19
            &
Order uploaded on :
File sent to the Bench Clerk
Date on which file goes to the AR
Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
Date of dispatch of Order.




                                                                                            4

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting