Satyendra Kumar Tyagi, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Sh. Satyendra Kumar Tyagi, Income Tax, Circle-41(1), C-17, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad New Delhi (PAN: AAGPT6219E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Sh. B.R.R. Kumar, Sr. DR Respondent by: Sh. Ranjan Bhatia, Adv. Date of hearing: 29.04.2015 Date of pronouncement: 06.05.2015

ORDER

PER SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M. :

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2008-09

impugning the order of learned CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi, dated 28.02.2011

raising the following grounds:

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in:

i. Deleting the addition on account of cash deposited in Bank account of Rs.

33,49,200/- (i.e. Rs. 18,00,000/- + Rs. 15,00,000/- being cash deposited and + Rs. 49,200/-) other credits.

ii. In deleting the above addition the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad as well as perverse in law as it summarily dismissed the material on record, without discussing and rebutting the same (though clearly brought out on record in the assessment order) and has been decided upon by ignoring the facts all together.

iii. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that cash deposits of Rs. 33,49,200/-

in two bank accounts does not pertain to Assessee but to HUF ignoring 2 ITA No. 2211/Del /2011 Assessment Year: 2008-09

the facts that the assessee failed to substantiate in any manner the ownership and sale of any agricultural land by HUF from which theses cash deposits in bank accounts are alleged to have been made."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is an individual

deriving income under the heads "salary" and "other sources". For the

assessment year 2008-09, the return of income was filed on 23rd July, 2008,

declaring income of Rs. 7,41,700/-. The said return of income was selected for

scrutiny and the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

(for short "the Act") was passed on 29.12.2010 at a total income of Rs.

41,62,900/- after making addition of cash deposit of Rs. 33,49,200/-. It was

submitted before the Assessing Officer that the bank account no. 55008070641

with the State Bank of Patiala, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad, belongs to HUF of

which the appellant is a coparcener.

3. As regard cheque deposits of Rs. 15 lakhs in the State Bank of Patiala,

Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad, it was submitted that this amount was transferred by

the cheque from the O.N. Tyagi HUF's account no. 09466001 with PNB

Roorkee and HUF in turn deposited the cash out of the sale proceeds of ancestral

land in the said account of PNB, Roorkee. This explanation was not believed by

the Assessing Officer and therefore added a sum of Rs. 33,49,200/-. Aggrieved,

an appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated

28.02.2011, allowed the appeal of the assessee after considering the information

filed by the respondent assessee. Hence, the Revenue filed the present appeal. 3 ITA No. 2211/Del /2011

Assessment Year: 2008-09

4. It was argued by the learned DR that the learned CIT(A) was not justified

in deleting the addition without examining the taxability of this amount in the

hands of the HUF and placed heavy reliance on the assessment order.

5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative placed reliance

on the order of learned CIT(A).

6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the

material available on record. The short issue in this appeal for our adjudication

is whether the explanation tendered by the respondent assessee in support of the

sources for cash deposit in the bank account is tenable in the eyes of law. We

notice from the material on record that the respondent assessee furnished

copies of sale deed of the ancestral agricultural lands in support of the

availability of the cash in the hands of HUF. The only contention of the

Assessing Officer appears to be that there was no mention about the HUF either

in the sale deeds etc. and therefore, the A.O. is of the opinion that the

explanation cannot be accepted. In our considered view, the issue to be

examined is whether there is a sale of agricultural land as stated by the

respondent or not and whether the lands belong to HUF or individual is

immaterial, insofar as the present proceedings are concerned. The evidence

placed by the respondent assessee could not be displaced by the Assessing

Officer therefore as a natural corollary it implies that the sale proceeds of the

agricultural lands are available with the assesse or his HUF and the same money 4 ITA No. 2211/Del /2011 Assessment Year: 2008-09

was utilized for the purpose of deposit in both the aforesaid accounts. Therefore,

the cash deposit in the bank accounts stand explained and no addition is called

for. The explanation tendered by the assessee has to be accepted as a reasonable

and plausible explanation for the source of cash deposits. Hence, the grounds of

appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

The decision is pronounced in the open court on 6 th May, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 6th May, 2015. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi