Latest Expert Exchange Queries
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) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

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.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Work Flow Workflow Software Software Automation Workflow automation Software Design Workflow Design Business Work Flow Workflow automation tools

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