Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Bikram Singh, New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 17 July, 2020
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'A', NEW DELHI
Before Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vice President
Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member
(E-Court Module)
ITA No. 2862/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13
Bikram Singh, Vs DCIT,
Prop.M/s Lovelin Enterprise, Circle-21(2),
8/34, Mehram Nagar, New Delhi
New Delhi-110037
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. ABKPS5232P
Assessee by : Sh. C. S. Agarwal, Sr. Adv.
Revenue by : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 16.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 17.07.2020
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assesse e against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-7 , New Delhi dated 29.03.2017.
2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
"1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the additio n of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-, a sum received as loan from Shri Joginder, merely because it had been inadve rtently credited in the books of accounts in the name of Shri Birender.
2. That the learned CIT (A) has overlooked that Shri Birender was an employee of the assessee and the accountant mistakenly instead of crediting the credit, name of the creditor i.e. Shri Joginder, (despite the fact undisputedly the amount was received by an 2 ITA No. 2862/Del/2017 Bikram Singh account payee cheques from Shri Joginder who happened to be the real brother of Shri Birende r) has held that the appellant has unsuccessfully tried to weave a new story to explain the impugned transaction. Such a finding is wholly erroneous and is arbitrary.
3. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the afore said sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was received from the joint account of Shri Joginder and Smt. Krishna Devi, (mother of Shri Joginder) through account payee cheques and as such in view of an unimpeachable evidence, the finding recorde d is appare ntly misco nceived and is arbitrary.
4. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no adve rse inference could b drawn to hold the credit remained as unexplaine d which could be drawn from the statement of Shri Bire nder (without e ven providing a copy thereof) and producing him for cross examination and further the learned CIT (A) has failed to appre ciate that the statement has been selectivel y read which could enable him to draw an adverse inference.
5. That the learned CIT(A) has furthe r ove rloo ked that the creditor fro m whose bank account the amo unt was received as a loan namely Shri Joginder was pro duced who was also examined by the CIT(A) and that he had duly confirmed of having provided the lo an which sum was received by him from Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon on acquisition of his land and also on realization from saving bond showing maturity amount of Rs. 3 crores on 29.03.2009.
6. The findings of the learned CIT(A) because the creditor was not assesse d to tax and by merely furnishing of copy of aadhar number and PAN card, the creditwo rthiness and genuineness of the transaction has not been e stablished, is by overlooking the evidence furnished i.e. the source of the credit in the account of creditor as also the confirmatio n of the credito r, who had perso nally appeared and deposed to the effect of having 3 ITA No. 2862/Del/2017 Bikram Singh provided a loan to the assessee through account payee cheque.
7. That the finding recorded by the learned CIT(A) in para 4.6 that the affidavits filed of Shri. Joginder Singh and Smt. Krishna Devi are self serving documents is misconceived bo th in law and on facts and furthe r is in disregard of the fact that, the affidavit filed was of the creditor (was in the nature of confirmation) and had been admitted as an additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, which had been supported by documentary evidences [Page of PB filed before the learned CIT(A)] in support that the amounts advanced were out of the bank balances and represented compensation received as well as maturity of bond as was duly reflected in the bank account o f the creditor.
8. That the learne d CIT(A) has further erred in sustaining the addition on the basis of the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd., CIT -II vs. MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd. and in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, which have absolutely no application to the facts of the instant case.
9. The findings of the CIT(A) that the assessee has not provided satisfactory explanation is misconceived both on facts and in law and overlooks the factual substratum of the case and mate rial on record."
3. Heard the arguments of bo th the parties and perused the material available on reco rd.
4. The assessee received loan from Smt. Krishna Devi mother of Sh. Joginder who is a brother of Sh. Birender. Sh. Birender is working as an accountant with the assessee. The assessee, with regard to the loan re ceived from Smt. Krishna Devi, has wro ngly entered the name of Sh. Birender in the balance sheet instead of Smt. Krishna Devi. This mistake of entering the name of Sh. Birender instead of Smt. Krishna Devi has been made because 4 ITA No. 2862/Del/2017 Bikram Singh the cheque of Smt. Krishna Devi has been handed over by Sh. Birender to the assessee. During the asse ssment proceedings, the AO enquired with Sh. Birender who feigned igno rance of lending any loan to the assessee. Before the revenue authorities, it was submitted time and again that the amount has been given by Smt. Krishna Devi mother of Sh. Virende r. However, the revenue authorities did not heed to the submission o f the assessee and held it is concocted story and made addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. The Tribunal in the interest of justice has gone through the bank statements of the assessee as well as the purported lender namely, Smt. Krishna Devi. We find that Smt. Krishna Devi received money on account of land acquisitio n which have been kept as FDRs and on maturity, the amo unts have been given as loan to the assessee. The receipt of money by the assessee is reflected in the bank stateme nt of the Prop. concern of the assessee namely, M/s Lovelin Enterprises, OBC A/c No. 00295010000220 on 16.03.2012, Cheque No. 20276, the corresponding entry is reflected in the bank statement of Smt. Krishna De vi A/c No. 2100502307 maintaine d in Gurgaon Gramin Bank. Hence, the amounts received by the assessee and the sources of the lender have been undisputedly proved. The revenue has declined to allow the assessee to corre ct the error in the entering the name of the party and treated the same as a fictional fairy-tale.
6. Since, the bank statements of the asse ssee has been filed by the order of the be nch, in the interest o f justice, the reve nue is given the liberty to obtain the official bank statement for 5 ITA No. 2862/Del/2017 Bikram Singh verification o f the entries for its authe nticity from their end and approach the Tribunal in case of any discrepancy.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 17 /07/2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sushma Chowla) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar)
Vice President Accountant Member
Dated: 17/07/2020
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR