Gayatri Sekhar, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA No. 4528/Del/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an assessee explains the source of a cash deposit by showing that it represents sale proceeds of property, and substantiates that explanation by producing the sellers' income tax returns declaring the same sale consideration, the assessee has discharged the onus of explaining the credit; a mere discrepancy between the registered value of the property and the claimed consideration does not by itself justify an addition in the assessee's hands, and any addition in respect of understated consideration is to be made in the hands of the buyer who declared the lower purchase consideration. Where the Commissioner (Appeals) has given no decision on a particular addition, a ground of appeal challenging the deletion of that addition does not arise from the impugned order and is dismissed as infructuous.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Income Tax Officer, Vs. Km. Gayatri Sekhar, Ward-42(2), New Delhi Room No. 109, Aakash Officers, Mess, Zakir Hussain Marg, New Delhi (PAN:AYCPS1237P) (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Respondent by: Sh. S. Sampath Date of hearing: 27.03.2015 Date of pronouncement: 27.03.2015
ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL,A.M.:
This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the CIT(A) dated
31.05.2013 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.
2. The solitary ground raised in this appeal is against the deletion of addition
of Rs. 62 lakh on account of cash deposited in ICICI bank and Rs. 80,322/- on
account of interest income.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of
Indian Air Force. A sum of Rs. 62 lakh was deposited in her bank account
maintained with ICICI bank on 29.08.2008. On being called upon to explain the
source of deposit of such amount in her bank account, she stated that her parents 2
were residing outside India during the relevant financial year. The property
jointly held by them was sold by her during the year on the basis of Power of
attorney and the sale proceeds were deposited in her bank account in cash. In
support of her claim, she filed copy of the returns filed by her parents for the
assessment year under consideration. The returns filed by the parents revealed
that they had declared sale consideration at Rs. 31 lakh each as the full value of
consideration in the computation of income under the head `Capital gains'. Not
convinced, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 62 lakh in the hands of
the assessee. Apart from that, he also made an addition of Rs. 80,322/- towards
the interest income earned from bank, which was not declared. The learned
CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 62 lakh against which the Revenue has come
up in the appeal before us.
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material
available on record. It is observed that the assessee duly stated the source of
deposit of Rs. 62 lakh in her bank account, being the sale proceeds of the
property held by her parents. Not only that, she also furnished copy of their
returns of income declaring sale consideration at Rs. 31 lakh each. The mere fact
that registered value of property was stated to be at Rs. 9,80,000/-, cannot be a
criteria to reject the assessee's contention of the actual sale consideration at Rs.
62 lakh, more so, when the same sale consideration was duly declared by her
parents in their respective returns of income. In our considered opinion, the 3
assessee fully discharged the onus cast upon her to give the source of deposit of
Rs. 62 lakh in her bank account. The addition, if any, could have been
considered in the hands of the buyer showing lower purchase consideration. The
assessee cannot be saddled with any further liability. The impugned order is,
therefore, upheld to this extent.
5. As regards the other part of the ground about the deletion of addition of
Rs. 80,322/- on account of interest income, we find that there is no decision
given by the learned CIT(A) sustaining or deleting this addition. This part of the
ground, therefore, cannot be said to arise from the impugned order. The same is
therefore, dismissed as infructuous.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
The decision is pronounced in the open court on 27th March, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (I.C. Sudhir) (R.S. Syal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 27th March, 2015. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free