Bipin Bihari Singh, Delhi vs Assessee

Shri Bipin Bihari Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o Kanhaiya Lal & Co., Ward 39(1), C.R. Building, 301, Avadh Complex, D-5, New Delhi Laxmi Nagar New Delhi-110052 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No.ANIPS7894R Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. B. R. R. Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 21.04.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2015

ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2012 of the ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi.

2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:-

"1. That the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- as made by the authorities below u/s 69A of I.T. Act on account of unexplained cash transaction is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and at any rate, without prejudice very excessive.

2. That similarly the addition of Rs. 5,38,315/- as made by the authorities below u/s 69A of I.T. Act towards unexplained payment to Life Insurance is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and at any rate, without prejudice very excessive.

2 ITA No.6491/Del/2012 Bipin Bihari Singh

Various observations made by the authorities below in their respective order are either incorrect or are untenable. The submissions supported by evidence as made before the authorities below had not been appreciated properly.

3. That the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is illegal and at any rate, without prejudice, such interest as levied is very excessive.

4. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend/modify the grounds of appeal."

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 05.10.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 2,86,137/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by observing that the assessee made cash transaction of Rs. 5,00,000/- with M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank and had not submitted any explanation regarding the source. Another addition of Rs. 5,38,315/- was also made. The said amount was claimed to have been paid by the assessee towards Life Insurance Premium to M/s Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.

4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition made by the AO by observing as under:

"I have considered the ground raised in appeal. The Assessing Officer has found that the assessee has made the cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- the source of which has not been explained. During appeal proceedings 3 ITA No.6491/Del/2012 Bipin Bihari Singh

also the appellant has not disclosed the source for the said deposit. Accordingly, I have no reason to interfere with the order of assessment on the issue. In the result, the ground raised in appeal is dismissed.

Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,38,315/-. The appellant has raised the ground that the amount was paid towards insurance from his firm's account Rs. 50000/- and Rs. 5,50,000/-. However, the assessee has not proved source for the said deposite. Accordingly, I have no reason to interfere with order of assessment. In the result, the appeal is dismissed."

5. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) have appreciated the facts in right prospective for making/sustaining the impugned additions. It was stated that all the details were furnished before the authorities below and that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was withdrawn from M/s A. B. Construction Company (A reference was made to page no. 13 of the assessee's paper book). It was stated that the said amount was deposited in the bank account (A reference was made to page nos. 11 & 12 of the assessee's paper book). It was further stated that Life Insurance Premium was also paid by withdrawing the amount either from the proprietorship firm M/s A. B. Construction or by making the withdrawal from the Savings Bank Account. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified.

4 ITA No.6491/Del/2012 Bipin Bihari Singh

6. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the order of the authorities below.

7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) appreciated the facts and details furnished by the assessee in right prospective, therefore, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order Pronounced in the Court on 22/04/2015).

Sd/- Sd/- (A. T. Varkey) (N. K. Saini) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 22/04/2015 *Subodh* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR