Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh,, Chandigarh vs Department Of Income Tax on 12 January, 2007
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIG ARH BENCH ' A', CHANDIG ARH
BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
Ms. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICI AL MEMBER
IT(SS)A No. 15 & 16/Chd/2007
BP ending on 20.11.1997 & 12.1.2007
A.C.I.T. Circle 1(1) Vs. Jatinder Pal Singh
Chandigarh H No. 813, Phase III-B-!,
Mohali
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri Manjit Singh
Respondent by: Shri Vineet Krishan
Date of hearing 3.4.2014
Date of Pronouncement 16.4.2014
O R D E R
PER T.R. SOOD, A.M
These appeals are directed against the order dated 12.1.2007 of the Ld CIT(A), Chandigarh. These appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.
IT(SS)A No. 15/Chd/2007
2. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following grounds:
"1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) in Appeal No. 332/P/06-07 through order dated 12.1.2007 has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,07,000/- made by the Assessing officer on account of unexplained deposits with Central Bank of India.
2 The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in admitting additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of Income -tax Rules, 1962 without providing reasonable opportunity to the Assessing officer to examine the evidence."
3 After hearing both the parties we find that a search was conducted in the premises of Shri Amarjit Singh Dhingra father 2 of the assessee. Assessee's case was covered u/s 158BD of the Act. During assessment proceedings the Assessing officer noticed that following amounts have been deposited in the bank:
Account No. Date Amount (Rs) 12246/Central Bank 21.8.93 10,000 12246/Central Bank 1.12.93 10,000 12246/Central Bank 4.9.94 14,000 16866/Central Bank 16.10.95 70,000 16866/Central Bank 4.12.95 21,000 16866/Central Bank 1.2.96 10,000 16866/Central Bank 8.4.96 72,000
Detailed explanation was filed but the Assessing officer has stated in his order that reply in relation to these items were not found to be reasonable therefore these amounts were added to the undisclosed income of the assessee. 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee was having bank account with Central Bank with his sister Ms. Gurpreet Kaur. He further noticed that narration for each debit credit entry was given. The assessee had also filed statement of affairs and these documents were filed before the Assessing officer also. He noted that credit in the bank account are out of salary income as well as loan from Mrs. Satinder Kaur w/o Shri Kawaljit Singh. Her confirmation was also filed. The amounts were received through bank drafts therefore according 3 to the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had discharged his burden and deleted the addition.
5 Before us, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue strongly supported the order of the Assessing officer. 6 On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the documents were filed before the Assessing officer and therefore addition was not justified and has been correctly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 7 W e have gone through the rival submissions carefully and find that once the amounts were received through bank drafts and confirmation was also filed then there was no justification in the addition in the absence of any particular defect in such confirmation. Therefore we find nothing wrong with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same.
8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in IT(SS)A No. 15/Chd/2007 is dismissed.
IT(SS)A No. 16/Chd/2007 9 In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following ground:
"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) in appeal No. 8/P/06-07 through order dated 12.1.2007 has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3,08,205/- imposed by the Assessing officer u/s 158BFA(2) of Income -tax Act, 1961."
10 The penalty was levied by the Assessing officer in this case on the additions made by him. Since all the additions were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), he cancelled the penalty. 11 Both the parties were heard.
412 After considering the rival submissions and the material on record, we find that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been confirmed by us while adjudicating the quantum appeal in above stated paras, therefore penalty proceedings will not survive which has been correctly cancelled by the Ld. CIT(A). 13 In the result, appeal of the Revenue in IT(SS)A No. 16/Chd/2007 is dismissed.
14 In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.4.2014 Sd/- Sd/-
(SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD)
JUDICI AL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 16.4.2014
SURESH
Copy to: The Appellant/The Respondent/The CIT/The CIT(A)/The DR