Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Tej Pal Yadav, New Delhi vs Ito, Noida on 26 December, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "SMC-II", NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 2930/DEL/2015
A.Y. : 2009-10
TEJ PAL YADAV ITO, WARD 1(4),
C/O RAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES, VS. NOIDA
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS,
L-7A, SOUTH EXTENSION,
PART-II, NEW DELHI - 110 049
(PAN: ABJPY9715C)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by : Sh. Raj Kr. Gupta, CA
Department by : None
ORDER
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida dated 15.1.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.
2. The grounds of appeal read as under:-
1. That under the facts and circumstances and in view of the documents, explanations and statements recorded, both the lower authorities erred in law as well as on merits in making and sustaining addition of Rs. 25,07,700/- as unexplained cash deposit on various dates in Andhra Bank, Sector-55/56, Noida.1
2. That without prejudice no proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing has been allowed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and filed his return of income on 27.10.2009 decaling income of Rs. 1,49,250/-.
Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and AO completed the assessment vide his order dated 29.1.2011 passed u/s. 144/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at an assessed income of Rs. 30,54,990/- after making an addition of Rs. 25,07,700/- under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit in his bank account.
4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 15.1.2015 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that in view of the documents, explanations and statements recorded, both the lower authorities erred in law as well as on merits in making and sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,07,700/- as unexplained cash deposit on various dates in Andhra Bank, Sector 55/56, Noida. Hence, he requested that the addition may be deleted.
6. In this case, Notice of hearing to the parties were sent, in spite of the same, none appeared on behalf of the Revenue nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case 2 and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the Revenue, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua Revenue, after hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee and perusing the records.
7. I have heard Ld. A.R. of the Assessee and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith relevant records available with me. In this case the assessee has furnished all the information asked by the AO and also produced three persons namely Sh. Shadi, Sh. Satish Goel and Sh. Ram Bir Singh Tewatia. Sh. Shadi father of the assessee have been produced before the AO for proving the sale of agriculture land by him and he has admitted that he has entered into agreement of sale with four persons. I also note that Sh. Satish Goel and Sh. Ram Bir Singh Tewatia who are the buyers of agricultural land as per agreement of sale and their statement were recorded by the AO in which they have admitted that they have purchased the agriculture land from Sh. Shadi, the father of the assessee and also admitted that they have made the cash/cheque to the father of the assesee. It is an admitted fact that assessee has submitted all documentary evidence in respect of agreement to sale of land, sale deed of property, sale in accordance with agreement and copy of khasra and khatoni in support of agriculture land, details of cash received and copy of relevant bank account which establishes that these are sufficient evidence for source of deposit of Rs. 25,07,770/- in Andhra Bank. Keeping in view of the 3 above, assessee has well explained the deposit of cash with Andhra Bank Rs. 2507700/- out of sale proceed of agriculture land, hence, the addition made and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified in the eyes of law. Therefore, the addition in dispute is deleted.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26/12/2016.
Sd/-
[H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 2612/2016 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 4