Lekshmi Vishwanath, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

ITA NO. 4579/Del/2013

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "D", NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4579/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Mrs. Lekshmi Vishwanath Ward 40(4), VS. F-175/5, Aaditya Apartment, Room No. 110, Civic Centre, Dilshad Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (PAN: AAKPV3978N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Department by : Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, CA & Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, Adv.

Date of Hearing : 17-03-2015 Date of Order : 20-03-2015

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order dated 16.5.2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.

2. The grounds raised by the Department read as under:-

"1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,81,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

1 ITA NO. 4579/Del/2013

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting additional evidence without giving an opportunity to AO for submission of Remand Report which is contravention of Rule 46A.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the cash deposit of Rs. 15,81,000/- out of Rs. 16,18,000/- in saving bank account without finding nature of such cash deposit as loan or gift without verifying the source and capacity of the person who has given the cash to the assessee.

4. The appellant craves to be allowed to add, delete or amend any other grounds of appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income of Rs. 2,28,696/- on 27.7.2010. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the basis of AIR information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 16,18,000/- in her saving bank account with SBI, IP Estate, New Delhi.

3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to explain the source of this deposit in her account. The assessee has explained the source of the deposit alongwith filing of affidavit, copy of bank pass book and copy of the Driving License of the person who made deposit in her account. Thus the source of the deposit and identity of the person who made that deposit, was explained by the assessee. The AO did not accept the explanation / evidence of the assessee and made the addition in dispute vide his assessment order dated 30.3.2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2

ITA NO. 4579/Del/2013

4. Against the aforesaid assessment order of the Assessing Officer, Asseessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order 16.5.2013 has partly allowed the appeal of the assesee and gave relief of Rs. 15,80,000/- by deleting the same and sustained the balance addition of Rs. 38,000/-, out of total addition of Rs. 16,18,000/-.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16.5.2013, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6. At the time of hearing Ld. Departmental Representative has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and reiterated on the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue.

7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order and same should be upheld.

8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records,

especially the impugned order dated 16.5.2013, we find that Ld.

CIT(A) has perused the assessment order, written submissions, and

grounds of appeal very carefully. Ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO

should enquire and investigate such thing and bring the truth in the

assessment record. These facts are given to the AO and AO should

accept the truth if he cannot find anything contrary to it. Ld. CIT(A)

further observed that the assessee had received Rs.16,18,000/- as

per the bank account statement from one of his friend from

Meghalaya Mr. W. Sutong. Mr. W. Sutong is a Class-I contractor of

Meghalaya PWD department and was also not Income Tax Assessee,

3 ITA NO. 4579/Del/2013

as he was a Tribal man from Meghalaya and he is exempted from

Income Tax u/s 10(26) of I.T. Act. The genuineness, credit

worthiness and identity of Mr. W. Sutong is verified and found to be

correct. Thus the assessee's version of truth was placed before A.O.

also, but A.O. did not find any evidence contrary to above facts. Ld.

CIT(A) further observed that the assessee's husband was working in

Meghalaya House and he used to come across the friend Mr. W.

Sutong in the Meghalaya House. When the assessee and her

husband purchased a house, they had discussed the matter with the

Mr. W. Sutong and Mr. W. Sutong agreed to pay them

Rs.16,18,000/- by cash in their bank account but later on they

realized that they being in the government service, it is not proper

to get loan from stranger. There will be problems for them and they

returned the money immediately to the appellant's bank account by

RTGS. The above submission of refund of money is available on

record. Therefore, Rs.15,80,000/- was returned by assessee's

husband from their joint account to Mr. W. Sutong. Hence, in our

considered opinion, the CIT(A) has rightly gave a relief to the

assessee of Rs15.80 Lakh. In the background of the aforesaid

detailed discussions, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the

addition of Rs. 15,80,000/- and sustained the balance addition of

Rs. 38,000/-. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with

4 ITA NO. 4579/Del/2013

the well reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we uphold

the impugned order by dismissing this ground of appeal.

9. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20/03/2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

[B.C. MEENA] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date 20/3/2015 "SRBHATNAGAR" Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches

5