Income Tax Offier, Ward 28(4), New Delhi Vs Shri Jagdish Kakker, Flat No. E-501, Raj Hans Apptt., Ahinsa Khand, Part-1, Indrapuram, Distt. Ghaziabad Income Tax Offier, Ward 28(4), New Delhi Vs Shri Jagdish Kakker, Flat No. E-501, Raj Hans Apptt., Ahinsa Khand, Part-1, Indrapuram, Distt. Ghaziabad Chartered Accountant CA ICAI Chartered Accountants CA ICAI CAinINDIA ICAI Announcements Accounting Standards CA News ICAI Students ICAI Members Case Laws CPT IPCC Final ICAI Course CA Course ICAI Forum CA Question Papers ICAI Study Material

« From the Courts »

Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
Attachment on Cash Credit of Assessee under GST Act: Delhi HC directs Bank to Comply Instructions to Vacate
Income Tax Addition Made Towards Unsubstantiated Share Capital Is Eligible For Section 80-IC Deduction: Delhi High Court


« Income Tax Offier, Ward 44(3), New Delhi Vs Shri Laxman...	COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV Vs. HOTZ INDUSTRIES LTD.... »
Income Tax Offier, Ward 28(4), New Delhi Vs Shri Jagdish Kakker, Flat No. E-501, Raj Hans Apptt., Ahinsa Khand, Part-1, Indrapuram, Distt. Ghaziabad

July, 30th 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `D', NEW DELHI Before Sh. George George K., JM And Sh. B. C. Meena, AM ITA No. 4126/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Income Tax Offier, Ward 28(4), Vs Shri Jagdish Kakker, New Delhi Flat No. E-501, Raj Hans Apptt., Ahinsa Khand, Part-1, Indrapuram, Distt. Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANVPK4259M Assessee by : Sh. R. B. Arora, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S. N. Bhatia, DR Date of Hearing : 24.7.2014 Date of Pronouncement : 25.7.2014 ORDER Per George George K., JM: This appeal at the instance of department is directed against CIT(A) order dated 16.5.2012. The relevant assessment year is 2008-09. 2. The grounds raised read as follows:- "1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidence without giving any opportunity to the A.O. 2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. Rs. 13,48,700/- out of the total addition of Rs. 14,48,700/- made by the A.O on account of income from undisclosed sources". 2 ITA No. 4126/Del/2012 Jagdish Kakker 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is an individual. He was engaged in sanitary and hardware business during the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer had received A.I.R information that the assessee had incurred credit card expenditure amounting to Rs. 14,48,700/- (ABN Amro Bank credit card). The assessee was asked to explain the said expenditure and in absence of a reply the same was added u/s 69 of the Act as undisclosed income. 4. Aggrieved by the said addition the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the First Appellate Authority, it was submitted that the assessee had only minor business transactions and did not incur the huge expenditure of 14,48,700/- as credit card expenses. It was submitted that the assessee is a small time businessman and the business has been since closed and he is now working as a salaried employee. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. The findings of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- "3.3 I have considered the order of the A.O and the submissions of the assessee and I find some merit in the submission of the assessee that the A.O has not colleted any evidence to show that the assessee had incurred the expenditure of Rs. 14,48,700/- through his credit card and as such there is no justification for making addition under the head credit card expenditure. However, it is seen that the A.O had actually received the AIR information which was actually regarding the cash deposits/transactions of Rs. 14,48,700/- through ABN Amro Bank which the A.O mistakenly took as expenditure under the head credit card. Further, it is seen that the assessee is having a bank account with ABN Amro Bank account in which there was a cash deposit of Rs. 14,53,700/- but it is also seen that the cash deposits are of smaller amounts and on various dates and there are large numbers of transactions of cash 3 ITA No. 4126/Del/2012 Jagdish Kakker deposits and withdrawals. It is also seen that the total deposits in this bank account is of Rs. 21,72,616/- which includes the cash deposits of Rs. 14,53,700/- on various dates. It is also seen that although the closing peak balance in the bank account is average Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- but there are various closing peak balance above Rs. 50,000/- also and the maximum closing balance is of Rs. 1,04,174/- on 12/10/2007. 3.4 After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and after taking a holistic view particularly the fact that the assessee was a small time businessman having very small turnover, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if a lump sum estimated addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- is confirmed considering the closing balance peak credit and various cash deposits and other unexplained income and accordingly, the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- is confirmed and the balance addition of Rs. 13,48,700/- (Rs. 14,48,700/- (-) Rs. 1,00,000/-) is deleted." 5. The Revenue being aggrieved is an appeal before us. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of 13,48,700/- out of the total addition of Rs. 14,48,700/- made by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence and has not given sufficient opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the same. 6. The ld. AR, on the other hand, submitted that no fresh evidence was produced before the First Appellate Authority. It was submitted that the A.I.R information that was received by the department was with reference to cash deposits in Royal Bank of Scotland (the name changed from ABN Amro Bank) and the department had made a mistake in taking deposits of sale proceeds as expenditure for credit card payments. 4 ITA No. 4126/Del/2012 Jagdish Kakker 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Assessing Officer could have easily realized that there was a prima facie mistake on the part of the Revenue to process the information received through the A.I.R. The A.I.R information was actually regarding the cash deposits of Rs. 14,48,700/- through ABN Amro Bank. We have perused the bank statement of the ABN Amro Bank which is placed at pages 14 to 26 of the paper book filed by the assessee. It is seen that the cash deposits are small amounts on various dates. There is also cash withdrawal. The assessee's claim is that cash deposits are out of sale proceeds received in cash and cash withdrawal are for making purchases from wholesalers and small manufactures. The Assessing Officer without verify the matter proceeded to make an addition u/s 69 of the Act. The CIT(A) has correctly analyzed the issue in question and reduced the addition from Rs. 14,48,700/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The CIT(A) finding has not been controverted/dispelled by the Revenue. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the CIT(A) and we uphold the same. It is order accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/7/2014 Sd/- Sd/- (B. C. Meena) (George George K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25/7/2014 Subodh 5 ITA No. 4126/Del/2012 Jagdish Kakker Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 24.7.2014 PS 2. Draft placed before author 24.7.2014 PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM/AM Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order.