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: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT RATES :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TDS
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 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)

ITO, Ward-2, Rohtak. vs. Pawan Kumar, 476/26, Jawahar Nagar, Rohtak.
September, 04th 2014
                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                       DELHI BENCH `F', NEW DELHI

               BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                    &
                 SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                           ITA No. 2487/Del/2011
                          Assessment Year: 2007-08

 ITO,                                 vs.          Pawan Kumar,
 Ward-2,                                           476/26,
 Rohtak.                                           Jawahar Nagar,
                                                   Rohtak.
                                                   AFWPK1903P
 (Appellant)                                       (Respondent)

                 Appellant by : Shri Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
                     Respondent by : Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv.

                                     ORDER

PER DIVA SINGH, J.M.

       This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated

03/03/2011 of CIT(A)-Rohtak pertaining to 2007-08 assessment year on the

following grounds:

       1.     "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
       ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.
       16,55,500/- made by AO on account of unexplained cash deposits in
       bank. The assessee failed to explain the deposits in bank despite
       sufficient opportunities allowed to him during assessment
       proceedings;
       2.     On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.
       CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.
       16,55,500/- made by AO on account of unexplained cash deposits in
       bank, overlooking the facts narrated by AO in the remand report."
                       ITA No. 2487/D/2011 ­ Pawan Kumar                  2

2.     The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee returned an

income of Rs. 98,560/- which was selected for scrutiny under CASS.

Notices u/s 143(2) were issued and served upon the assessee in response

there to the assessee was represented by ld. AR on 21/10/2009 on which

date the hearing was adjourned.        On 26/10/2009 the assessee attended

along with his AR and filed a written reply. However, the AO proceeded to

assess the income u/s 144. For ready reference we reproduce the relevant

findings from the assessment order:




       1.6     "Notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) dated 8.10.2009 for 21.10.2009
       was issued but on the date of hearing Shri Mukesh Handa attended
       the proceedings and the case was adjourned to 26.10.2009. On
       26.10.2009 Shri Pawan Kumar along with Shri Mukesh Hana
       Advocate attended the proceedings and filed a written reply.
       2.     Sufficient opportunities have been allowed to the assessee to
       explain the deposits in bank but he failed to do so. The assessment
       is therefore, made u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act to the best of my
       judgment on the basis of material on records.
       3.     The assessee is a LIC agent. The assessee declared net profit
       of Rs. 98560/- from gross receipts of Rs. 169577/-. Copy of bank
       account obtained and deposits therein has been examined. During
       the year under consideration the assessee deposited cash of Rs.
       16,55,500/- in his account maintained with AXIS bank, Rohtak. The
       assessee was required to explain the source of deposit. No
       explanation has been offered despite so many opportunities allowed
       to the assessee. Unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 16,55,500/- is
       therefore, added in the total income of the assessee."

3.     Aggreived by this the assessee came in appeal before the First

Appellate Authority where on behalf of the assessee fresh evidence under

Rule 46A was filed stating that the documents could not be filed earlier as

they were in the possession of Shri Ravindra Singh Kadian.              The said
                       ITA No. 2487/D/2011 ­ Pawan Kumar                   3


evidences were admitted and remanded the same to the AO. The CIT(A)

considering the explanation of the assessee and the Remand Report of the

AO held that the source for cash deposit in the bank account of the

assessee were mainly from Shri Ravindra Singh Kadian for making payment

of LIC premium and the source of funds in the hands of Shri Ravindra Singh

Kadian stood explained the addition as such was deleted.

4.     Against this action the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.     Ld. Sr. DR relies upon the assessment order.           The LD. AR on the

other hand relied upon the impugned order.

6.   We have heard the rival submissions and have taken ourselves through

the material available on record. On a consideration thereof we are of the

view that the impugned order in the facts as they stand deserves to be

upheld. It is seen that the CIT(A) in para 3.1 & 3.2 after referring to the fresh

evidence has proceeded to admit the same and remanded the same to the

AO. The explanation of the assessee is found recorded in para 3.3 of his

order and the objections of the AO in the remand report are also found

recorded in para 3.4 of his order. For ready reference we reproduce the

same hereunder:

       3.1 "Regarding the additions made by the AO, the AR sought the
       admission of following documents as additional evidence u/r 46A as
       these documents were not in the possession of the appellant but in
       the possession of Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian:
       (i) Certificate from Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian
       (ii) Bank statement of Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian
       (iii) Status report of two LIC policies of Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian.
                       ITA No. 2487/D/2011 ­ Pawan Kumar                    4


              The certificate of Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian states that he
       has given Rs. 2.50 lakh in cash to the appellant on 22.6.2006 to
       deposit in his LIC policy number 174984904 as additional
       premium. Further, he has given Rs. 11.00 lacs in cash to the
       appellant on 3.7.2006 to deposit for his LIC policy of Rs. 15.00 lacs.
       This amount of Rs. 11.00 lacs was given in cash after withdrawing
       from his bank a/c no. 900056, Corporation Bank, Rohtak on
       3.7.2006.
       3.2 The above mentioned additional evidence has been admitted
       in terms of the provisions of Rule 46A and remanded to the AO for
       his report. The remand report of the AO and the rejoinder of the
       appellant have been taken on record.
       3.3 Before me, the AR submitted that the appellant, being an LIC
       Agent, sometimes used to accept cash from his customers, get it
       deposited in his bank account and pay LIC premium of the
       customers. During the year under reference, the appellant accepted
       cash of total Rs. 13.50 lacs from Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian, got
       deposited in his bank a/c and paid the LIC premium from his bank
       account. The appellant accepted cash of Rs. 2.50 lacs on 22.6.2006
       from Sh. Kadian, deposited in his bank account on 22nd & 23rd of
       June, 2006 and paid LIC premium of Rs. 1.00 lac and Rs. 1.50 lacs
       on 23.6.2006 therefrom. He further accepted cash of Rs. 11.00 lacs
       from Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian on 3.7.2006, deposited Rs. 9.00
       lacs on 3.7.2006 and Rs. 2.00 lacs on 25.8.2006 in his bank account
       and paid the LIC premium of Rs. 15.00 lacs of Sh. Ravinder Singh
       Kadian on 7.7.2006. The remaining small cash deposits were made
       out of past years savings.
       3.4 As per the remand report of the AO dated 7.2.2011, the AO
       recorded sworn statement of Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian wherein he
       confirmed the cash payments to the appellant. As per him, LIC
       Jiwan Plus Policy for the premium of Rs. 15.00 lacs was expiring on
       30.6.2006 and in order to save time, he withdrew cash from his bank
       a/c and give the same to the appellant who deposited it in his bank
       a/c and issued the cheque to LIC."




6.1.   It is seen that considering the above in a speaking manner, the

CIT(A) came to a reasoned conclusion which has not been assailed by the

Revenue by any contrary evidence or argument. The same is reproduced

hereunder for ready-reference:-
                        ITA No. 2487/D/2011 ­ Pawan Kumar                  5


        4. "I have considered the issue and the submissions made by the
        AR. Out of the Rs. 2.50 lacs given by Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian on
        22.6.2006, the appellant deposited Rs. 2.00 lacs on 22.6.2006 and
        Rs. 40,000/- on 23.6.2006 out of which he paid the premiums to LIC
        of Rs. 2.50 lacs on behalf of Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian. From the
        cash of Rs. 11.00 lacs given by Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian on
        3.7.2006, the appellant deposited Rs. 9.00 lacs on the same day and
        an amount of Rs. 6.00 lacs was received by cheque on the same day
        and an amount of Rs. 6.00 lacs was received by cheque from M/s
        Mahima Life Insurance from which the appellant made payment of
        LIC premium of Rs. 15.00 lacs on 7.7.2006 on behalf of Sh.
        Ravinder Singh Kadian. From the remaining Rs. 2.00 lacs received
        from Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian, the appellant deposited Rs. 2.50
        lacs on 25.8.2006. The sources for deposit of Rs. 50,000/- was
        stated to be from out of the past savings. From the above mentioned
        facts, it is apparent that the sources for cash deposits in the bank
        account of the appellant were mainly from Sh. Ravinder Singh
        Kadian for making payment of LIC premium. Since the sources in
        the hands of Sh. Ravinder Singh Kadian stand fairly explained, the
        cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant are treated as
        explained and, therefore, the addition made by the AO is deleted and
        the ground of appeal is allowed."

6.2.    On a perusal of the above detailed reasoning and finding arrived at
after following the procedures and considering the relevant material available
on record which has also been placed in the paper book filed before us, we
find that the reasoning arrived at by the CIT(A) on facts warrants no
interference. Being satisfied by the reasoning and finding the departmental
ground is dismissed. The said order was pronounced in the open court at
the time of hearing itself.
7.      In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
        The order is pronounced in the open court on 29th of August 2014.
          Sd/-                                                Sd/-

    (J.S. REDDY)                                               (DIVA SINGH)
 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                          JUDICIAL MEMBER

 Dated:29/ 08/2014
 *Kavita*
                       ITA No. 2487/D/2011 ­ Pawan Kumar          6



Copy forwarded to: -
  1. Appellant
  2. Respondent
  3. CIT
  4. CIT(A)
  5. DR, ITAT
                                TRUE COPY
                                                              By Order,


                                                  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Portal Design Website Design Portal Designing Website Designing Web Design Professional Portal Design Professional Website Design Professional Web Design Portal Design India Website Design India Portal Designing India Website Designing India Web Design India Professional Portal Design India Professional Website Design India Chicago Professional Web Design New York Professional Web Design California Website Design Florida Website Design New Jersey Website Design Britain UK Website Design London Manchester Website Design

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