Sant Meet Singh, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by

the CIT(A) on 20.2.2013 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09. ITA No.2261/Del/2013

2. The only ground raised in this appeal is against restricting the

addition amounting to Rs.21,89,574/- made by the AO u/s 69C of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act') to Rs.1 lac.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an

insurance agent. As per the AIR, a sum of Rs.21,89,574/- was deposited

in the assessee's bank account. On being called upon to explain the

source of this amount, it was stated that the credit card statements were

issued in the name of the assessee, but, the account was actually used by

one Shri Liyakat Ali, proprietor of M/s Sajid Automobiles, engaged in

the business of two-wheelers and spare parts. The assessee contended

that he allowed Liyakat Ali to use his bank account in the hope of

getting insurance covers for two-wheelers purchased transacted by him.

Not convinced with the assessee's submissions, the AO made an

addition for a sum of Rs.21.89 lac. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the

addition to Rs.1.00 lac, after considering the remand report from the

AO.

2 ITA No.2261/Del/2013

4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant

material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is an

insurance agent doing insurance of two-wheelers, three-wheelers, etc. A

sum of Rs.21.89 lac was routed through his bank account and the

transactions were actually done by Shri Liyakat Ali, proprietor of M/s

Sajid Automobiles. The assessee also demonstrated that the payments

against the credit cards were made by Shri Liyakat Ali for two-wheelers

purchased by him from M/s Diwan Auto, M/s Rajpoot Motors and M/s

Amazing Enterprises. Even confirmation from M/s Rajpoot Motors was

also submitted to the effect that the payment for spare parts purchased

from them by Liyakat Ali, was made through the assessee's bank

account. The assessee was getting a sum of Rs.2,000/- per vehicle in

lieu of allowing the user of his bank account, which position has been

admitted by the AO in his order for the AY 2009-10. The relevant

discussion on this issue has been made in paras 4.1 and 4.2 of the

impugned order. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was justified

in relying on the view taken by the AO for the AY 2009-10 in restricting

the addition from Rs.21.89 lac to Rs.1 lac, by rounding off the income 3 ITA No.2261/Del/2013

@ Rs.2,000/- per vehicle in respect of 38 vehicles transacted during the

year. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order.

5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 09.04.2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

[C.M. GARG] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated, 09th April, 2015. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT

AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.

4