Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Km. Preeti Singh, Meerut vs Ito, Noida on 31 October, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH: 'F': NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No:- 6909/Del/2014
(Assessment Year: 2009-10)
Km. Preeti Singh, Income Tax Officer,
B-99, Takshila Colony, Garh Road, Vs. Ward 1(3),
Meerut. Noida.
PAN No: ABVPS4659R
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv.
Revenue by : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
ORDER
PER: ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM This appeal by the Assessee is filed against the order dated 29.08.2014 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Noida-201301, for Assessment Year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
"i. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the view taken by Ld. Assessing Authority and thereby confirming the additions made by him. ii. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the appeal in part only whereas the appellant deserved full relief. The view taken by Ld. CIT(A) based on perverse and arbitrary approach and cannot be supported in the eyes of Law.
iii. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the view taken by Ld. Assessing Authority in respect to source of investment in property. The appellant produced the confirmation certificates, bank accounts and source ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
of income of the persons from home the money was taken to invest in property. Yet the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions. iv. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to add any other ground at the time of hearing of the appeal.
v. The orders passed by lower authorities are arbitrary and contrary to correct facts and may kindly be set aside or modified in terms of grounds of appeal.
(1.1) In this order, the following abbreviations have been used:
a. Assessing Officer as AO
b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A)
c. Departmental Representative as DR
d. Dated as dtd.
e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act
f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT
g. Learned as Ld.
h. Under Section as U/s
(2) The appeal filed by the Assessee is late by 5 days having regard to Section
253(3) of I.T. Act. The Assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The relevant portion of the petition is reproduced as under:-
"The appeal bearing number 6909/Del/2014 should have been filed in your court upto 18th December 2014 since the appeal order was served upon appellant on 19th October, 2014. Although the appellant dispatched the appeal in time through speed post on 18th December, 2014 but it might have reached your esteemed court after 19th October, 2014 due to some delay in speed post services. The appellant had bonafide belief that the appeal will reach in time in your court but the appellant came to know that appeal was delayed. The delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and due to bonafide reasons beyond control."
(2.1) In view of the aforesaid reasons stated by the Assessee, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the time prescribed U/s 253(3) of I.T. Act. Accordingly, in view of Section 253(5) of I.T. Act, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 16
ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
(3) The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny, through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) to examine the source of investment made in immovable property. The Assessee did not participate in the Assessment proceedings and the AO made the addition of Rs. 55,39,100/-, being the entire amount of investment in immovable property, in the Assessment Order dtd. 28.12.2011. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 55,39,100/- consisted cost of property (Rs. 51,86,000) and stamp duty (Rs. 3,53,100/-). The Assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid Assessment Order. During appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee made detailed submissions and also filed evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO which was considered by the Ld. CIT(A), and the Assessee also filed rejoinder to the remand report of the AO, which was also considered by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the actual sole consideration of the property was only Rs. 35,00,000/- whereas the value of the property was considered as Rs. 51,86,000/- for stamp duty purposes only. Vide order dtd. 29.08.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A), out of the aforesaid addition of Rs. 55,39,100/- made by the AO; an amount of Rs. 38,58,100/- has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), while the remaining amount has been deleted. Aggrieved again, the Assessee is now in appeal in ITAT. In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT, the Appellant filed a Paper Book of 87 pages containing following particulars:
Copy of written arguments before ITAT Copy of Medical Certificate of Appellant.
Copies of A/c of Ultra Home Construction Ltd. Details of Payments & Investment in property. Confirmation of Father & Brother and their ITRs Copies of All Bank Accounts.
Copy of Rejoinder to Remand Report.Page 3 of 16
ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
Copy of Judgment of Sarogi Credit Corporation. Copy of Judgment of CIT V/s Daulat Ram Rawat Mull Copy of Judgment of Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT.
(3.1) Further, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee also filed the following particulars:
Page of Date Amount Ch. No. Bank Remark/Source of Credit Paper in Bank Book 47 21.07.2006 4,00,000.00 130095 HSBC Payment from opening balance of Rs. 4,75,029.00 in saving bank A/c of her own savings 41 28.07.2006 5,00,000.00 00009 Kotak Payment from Opening Mahindra Balance of Rs. 1,54,495.00 in bank. Rs. 3,45,505.00 overdraft by Bank.
42 05.08.2006 5,00,000.00 00010 Kotak Payment from Opening
Mahindra Balance of Rs. 82,596.00 in
bank. Rs. 4,17,404.00
overdraft by Bank.
43 11.08.2006 2,00,000.00 00011 Kotak Opening Balance in Bank Rs.
Mahindra 77,365.00 Rs. 1,22,635.00
Overdraft by Bank. Rs.
10,80,000.00 deposited in
bank during the period.
54 18.08.2006 3,50,000.00 694204 ICICI Bank Payment from Opening
19.08.2006 3,50,000.00 694205 ICICI Bank Balance in Bank Rs.
7,94,080.00 as on
01.04.2006
20.08.2006 3,00,000.00 694203 ICICI Bank Opening Balance Rs.
1,24,080.00 in Bank Rs.
2,25,919.00 overdraft by
Bank.
46 26.07.2008 1,05,000.00 62756 Allahabad Payment from cash deposited
Bank Rs. 8,98,000.00 in Bank from
23.03.2006 to 28.03.2006.
17.08.2008 2,50,000.00 660341 P.N. B. Rs. 5,08,575 transferred
from Allahabad Bank on
12.08.2008
17.08.2008 2,50,000.00 660342 P.N. B.
Total 32,05,000.00
3,00,000.00 Payment made at the time
of registry out of saving and
cash in hand
3,53,100.00 Registration Expenses made
in Cash
Total 38,58,100.00
Page 4 of 16
ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
(3.2) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee submitted that the investment made by the Assessee during the year under consideration was only Rs.
12,58,100/- consisting of Rs. 9,05,000/- being payment made to the seller, and, in addition, stamp duty charges of Rs. 3,53,100/- were also laid. He further submitted that the remaining amount of investment was made in the earlier year(s) for which no addition can be made in the year under consideration. He also submitted that the aforesaid investment of Rs. 9,05,000/- during this year included Rs. 1,05,000/- through cheque payment out of the Assessee's Bank Account namely Allahabad Bank on 26.07.2008, and two payments of Rs. 2,50,000/- each, out of the Assessee's Bank Account in Punjab National Bank on 17.08.2008. The remaining amount of Rs. 3 lacs out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,05,000/- was made in cash, and stamp duty charges of Rs. 3,53,100/- were also paid in cash: thus, making total investment in cash amounting to Rs. 6,53,100/- during the year under consideration. The Ld. Counsel for Assessee took us through copies of the Assessee's account from the books of the builder from whom the property was purchased. He also took us through the copies of account statements of the Assessee's banks accounts. The Ld. Counsel, with the help of Paper Book showed us that there were sufficient deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee, carried forward from earlier year, to explain the source of aforesaid cheques ( one cheque of Rs. 1,05,000 from Allahabad Bank and two cheques of Rs. 2,50,000/- each from Punjab National Bank) issued by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for Assessee took us through Paper Book to support his contention that the brought forward opening balance at the beginning of this year in the bank accounts of the had assessee had accumulated over a period of time in past a few years. However, he contended that Page 5 of 16 ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
the deposits made in the bank accounts of the Assessee in earlier years cannot be the subject matter of addition in the year under consideration. The Ld. Counsel for assessee also relied on the written submissions filed in the Paper Book, reproduced below:
" Brief Facts of the Case:-
The appellant is engaged in the business of Trading/Job Work of readymade ladies garments and home furnishings. The assessee has been filing her Income Tax returns for almost a decade. The return income of the appellant has been approved in past U/s - 143(1) (a) of I.T. Act.
The appellant filed her Income Tax returns for the above year declaring Gross Income of Rs.2,44,339.00 and Net Income of Rs.l,94,990.00 on 08.05.2009. The case was subsequently selected for scrutiny U/s - 143(2) of I.T. Act, through CASS.
The appellant handed over the notice and other relevant documents to her local lawyer for proceedings fixed for 05.04.2011 and requested to look into the matter. The appellant presumed that the matter was being attended to by her counsel.
The appellant received another notice for 17.11.2011. She informed her counsel about the notice and requested to look into the mater. He assured the appellant to look into the matter. The appellant meanwhile reached at her native place at Meerut to join the marriage of her brother fixed for 20.11.2011. After the marriage she fell sick at Meerut on 28.11.2011 and was confined to bed for almost one month.
The appellant however sent a letter to the L'd ITO requesting him to grant some time since she was engaged in the marriage of her brother. She was not aware that the matter shall be time barred on 31.12.2011. She was also unaware of the fact that none appeared on fixed date.
Sir, the appellant failed to appear on fixed dates due to bonafide reasons beyond her control. She did not act deliberately. The Income Tax matters of the appellant were looked after by her brother and the counsel at Noida was engaged by him only. He was busy in her marriage celebrations at the crux of time hence failed to focus on assessment proceedings at Noida. She persuaded her counsel on telephone only and had bonafide belief that her case was being attended to. A major reason of her non appearance on hearing occurred due to her ill health. The photocopy of her medical certificates is being appended herewith for your kind reference.
Annexure - A Sir, an Ex - Parte assessment cannot be supported in the eyes of law. The appellant did not find justice at the hands of the L'D assessing authority. An order which is made Ex - Parte cannot be justified.Page 6 of 16
ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
The appellant being lady was not aware of the consequences which followed later and also of the fact that the matter shall be time barred shortly hence cannot be penalized in such a way as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Moti Lai Padam Path Sugar Mills Co., V/s State of U.P., reported in 118 ITR, Page - 330 in which court observed as under:-
A common man is not supposed to know each and every law of land while these laws are in abundance and act committed in ignorance of such law would not attract penal provisions.
The appellant made proper compliance before the L'd CIT, Appeals, Noida and filed relevant documents and evidences but he allowed the appeal partially only.
Merits of the Case:-
The appellant purchased a flat in Distt. Ghaziabad and on the basis of which case was selected for scrutiny. The L'd A.O. committed some mistakes in the facts of the case which are being discussed hereunder.
The L'd A.O. fixed the value of property as Rs.51,86,000.00 + Stamp duty of Rs.3,53,100.00 total Rs.55,39,100.00 whereas the actual value of property was Rs.35,05,000.00 + Rs.3,53,100.00 total Rs.38,58,100.00. The value of Rs.51,86,000.00 was considered for payment of Stamp duty only. The L'd assessing authority increased the value of property by Rs.16,86,000.00. However, the L'd first appellate authority deleted this addition and fixed the value of Rs. 38,58,100.00 and confirmed the addition of Rs. 38,58,100.00.
Said property was situated at Amrapali Village, BH Block, Vill - Makanpur, Distt Ghaziabad and was purchased from M/s Ultra Home Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi on Installments. The first installment of Rs,4,00,000.00 was paid on 21.07.2006. The last installment was paid on 17.08.2008. The year wise payment against the property was made in the following years.
F.Y. Amount (Rs.)
2006-07 Rs. 26,00,000.00
2008-09 Rs. 12,53,100.0
Total Rs. 38,53,100.00
Hence the entire payments were not related to the year in which assessment was made. In the year under question registry was executed only. The photocopies of the seller company's M/s Ultra Home Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi account is being appended to prove the mode and amounts of payment. The payment of Rs.32,05,000.00 was made in advance whereas rest of the payment was made at the time of execution of registry.
The L'd assessing authority made the addition on wrong footing and made the addition in the year under appeal without considering the merit of the case.
Annexure - Bl. B2. B3 Page 7 of 16 ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
The source of investment Sir, the appellant made the investment in the above property from the following source.
Sources of Funds Amount invested by Shri Rahul Singh, brother of the appellant on account of Km. Preeti Singh after making withdrawal from his ICICI Bank Ltd, Meerut A and transferred to O.B.C. through Ch. No. 506635. Shri Rahul Singh sold flat no.798 at pocket -2, Sec-13, Dwarika and deposited the amount in his bank account ICICI Ltd, Meerut, the Sh. Rahul Singh is assessee with PAN:
AJBPS0370D T The entire transaction reflected in his Income Tax returns Rs.18,70,000.00 T Amount invested by father Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, also an Income Tax assessee with PAN: AJBPS0369W in property under question in the name of his daughter after selling the property in F.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 situated at Shaym Nagar, Meerut. The entire transaction reflected in his Income Tax Returns. Rs. 12,71,000.00 Amount Invested by assessee from her income and savings made in previous years and deposited with the seller from time to time. Rs. 3,59,000.00 R Registration Expenses met out by the assessee from her savings and bank a/c Rs. 3,53,100.00 Total Rs. 38,53,100.00 The chart reflecting the payment against the property is being appended herewith for a quick look.
Annexure: C The photocopies of confirmation certificates of father and brother alongwith copies of their ITRs and that of appellant are being submitted.
Annexure - Dl. D2 Copies of bank A/c of the appellant, Shri Rahul Singh and Shri Pawan Kumar Singh are Page 8 of 16 ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
being appended herewith for your kind reference.
Annexure -El. E2 The appellant deposited Rs. 3,59,000.00 with the builder from time to time out of her savings. The appellant incurred Rs. 3,53,100.00 on account of registration expenses including stamp duty. This investment was made by the appellant out of her own income and savings.
The L'd assessing authority did not approve the investment of Rs. 3,59,000.00 and Rs. 3,53,100.00 respectively made by appellant out of her own savings stating that the appellant did not file her statement of affairs and bank account. The version of the L'd assessing authority is against facts of the case.
The investment of Rs. 3,59,000.00 and Rs. 3,53,100.00 totalling Rs. 7,12,100.00 cannot be rejected simply for the reason mentioned by the L'd assessing officer. The savings/income of the appellant can be understood by a simple method of accountancy. The Income and Expenditure of the appellant for the last years is drawn here under. This statement was also submitted before the lower authorities alongwith remand report.
A.Y. Income Deductions Personal Credit
Declared Exp. Balance
2002-03 50,000.00 0 10,000.00 85,000.00
2003-04 86,104.00 5,000.00 15,000.00 1,51,104.00
2004-05 1,02,506.00 5,000.00 20,000.00 2,28,610.00
2005-06 1,55,289.00 12,000.00 30,000.00 3,41,899.00
2006-07 1,95,875.00 45,283.00 42,000.00 4,50,491.00
2007-08 2,02,102.00 45,283.00 45,000.00 5,62,310.00
2008-09 2,07,565.00 49,346.00 55,000.00 6,85,529.00
2009-10 2,44,339.00 49,346.00 65,000.00 7,95,522.00
The chart above shows that the appellant incurred capital of around Rs.8.00 Lacs from her own sources, after deductions and withdrawal and the same cannot be questioned. The L'd first appellate authority did not consider this fact also. Therefore the investment declared by appellant worth Rs. 7,12,100.00 may kindly be approved in the interest of justice. The copies of all returns were filed before the L'd assessing authority along with statement of income in support of the defence taken in respect to investment made in the property.
Sir, the L'd assessing officer made the assessment without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant and without considering the merits of the case.
The lower authorities did not consider the investments of Rs. 18,70,000.00 and Rs. 12,71,000.00, respectively by the brother and father of the appellant. The brother and father of the appellant made proper declarations in respect to their investment which were submitted before the L'd assessing officer in the remand report. Both furnished copies of their ITRs along with statement of income to prove their status yet he did not accept the explanations. The declarations made by the brother and father are the sufficient evidence Page 9 of 16 ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
to prove the investments. Any declaration/certificate of any assessee, especially if he is an income tax assessee, can not be rejected unless proved forged or false.
The L'd assessing officer neither cross examined the brother and father nor got their declarations verified. Therefore rejections of these evidences are against the law and jurisdiction. The amount confirmed by the father and brother can not be suspected and can not be added in the Income of the appellant. The appellant places reliance upon the observations of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of M/s Sarogi Credit Corporation V/s CIT Bihar. The Hon'ble Court held as under:
If the person pledges his oath that he has advanced the amount in question to the assessee and his identity is proved, then the burden immediately shifts on to the department to show as to why the assessee's case could not be accepted.
The L'd ITO did not question the identity of the father and brother although the copies of their ITRs were filed before him.
The defence of appellant is also supported by the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT (Central), Cacutta V/s Daulat Ram Rawatmull, ITR 1973 Vol. 87 at page 351 the court held as under:
The onus of proving that the apparent was not the real was on party who claimed it to be so. As it was the department which claimed that the amount of FDRs belonged to repondent firm even through the receipt had been issued in the name of some other party.
The L'd assessing officer totally misconceived the fact regarding Syndicate Bank account no.: 145887801010003335. He based his remand report on this wrongly quoted account number.
He treated said bank account as owned by the appellant and raised this objection that the appellant deliberately did not furnish the copy of this account. The bank account questioned by the L'd assessing officer belongs to the builder company M/s Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. and not to the appellant. The L'd assessing officer did not bother to inquire this bank account and furnished remand report on wrong facts against the appellant.
The L'd first appellate authority viewed that the appellant did not produce copy of bank account and statement of cash flow. His objection was not sustainable since the appellant furnished all copies of bank statement along with remand report. The cash flow statement was also drawn at page 2 of the submissions made at the time of remand proceedings.
Lower authorities did not consider the amount invested by appellant out of her own savings. They did not even consider the fact that the major payment was made in the previous years. Assessment order as well as appeal order confirming such addition is not only arbitrarily but wrong also."Page 10 of 16
ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
(3.2.1) In respect of aforesaid cash investment totaling Rs. 6,53,000/- during the year under consideration, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee submitted that these were partly explained out of cash withdrawals made by the assessee in Financial Year (2006-07) from her bank account, including Rs. 2,00,000/- each on 16.09.2006 and on 15.02.2007.
(3.3) To summarise, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee contended that the investment made by the Assessee during the year under consideration was only a total of Rs. 12,58,100 and that the investment made by the assessee in property in earlier years cannot be the subject matter of addition in this year. He further contended that the investments made in this year included the aforesaid cheque transaction of Rs. 1,05,000/- on 26.07.2008 through Allahabad Bank and cheque transactions of Rs. 2,50,000/- each, both on 17th August, 2008, through the assessee's bank account in Punjab National Bank, which were adequately explained by brought forward opening balances in the assessee's bank accounts in the beginning of the year under consideration; and deposits made in assessee's bank accounts in earlier years cannot be subject matter of addition in the year under consideration. In respect of the cash investment of aforesaid total amount of Rs. 6,53,100/-, made this year is concerned; the contention of the Ld. Counsel for assessee was that the transactions were partly explained by the assessee's cash withdrawals from bank account in earlier years. (3.4) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. DR did not dispute the aforesaid facts advanced by the Ld. Counsel for Assessee and relied on the order of the lower authorities, namely Ld. CIT(A) and AO.
Page 11 of 16
ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
(4) We have heard both sides patiently and attentively. We have also considered all the materials on our record. At the time of hearing before us, the relevant facts are not in dispute. Firstly, it is not disputed that the total investment made by the assessee in this year was Rs. 12,58,100/- and the remaining investment was made in earlier years. It is also not disputed that out of the aforesaid investment of Rs. 12,58,100/-, the total payment amounting to Rs. 6,05,100/- was made by cheque and the remaining balance of Rs. 6,53,100/- was made by cash. It is also not disputed that the assessee had sufficient deposits in her bank account due to brought forward deposits of earlier year at the beginning of the year under consideration to explain the source of aforesaid transactions by cheque totaling Rs. 6,05,000/-. It is further not disputed that the deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee at the beginning of the year had accumulated in the past, across several years. It is also not disputed that the assessee had made significant amounts of withdrawals in cash, out of her bank account in an earlier year.
(4.1) It will be useful to refer to Section 4 of I.T. Act, which is the charging section. For ease of reference, Section 4 is reproduced as under:-
" Charge of income-tax.
4. (1) Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income-tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and [subject to the provisions (including provisions for the levy of additional income-tax) of, this Act] in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person :
Provided that where by virtue of any provision of this Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, income-tax shall be charged accordingly.Page 12 of 16
ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
(2) In respect of income chargeable under sub-section (1), income-tax shall be deducted at the source or paid in advance, where it is so deductible or payable under any provision of this Act."
(4.1.1) On perusal of Section 4(1) of I.T. Act, it is obvious that in the year under consideration, no addition can be made in respect of investments in property made by the assessee in earlier years or in respect of deposits in bank accounts of the assessee made in earlier year which brought forward to this year for making cheque payments of the aforesaid total amount of Rs. 6,05,100/-. Moreover, in any case, when certain amounts were invested by the assessee and also, certain other amounts were deposited in the bank account of the assessee, in previous years relevant to earlier A.Ys.; such investments or deposits could not possibly have been out of the income of the previous year under consideration (relevant to A.Y. 2009-10). It is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period. Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. We take strength from decisions reported at Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT 24 ITR 506(SC); ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC); CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44(SC) and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takht Singh 1 ITR 197 (SC) for the proposition that each 'previous year' is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment and further, that the profits made; and the liabilities of losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income of a particular year; unless in accordance with proviso to Section 4(1) of I.T. Act, there is statutory provision to the contrary, authorizing income of a period other than the previous year under consideration to be charged to income-tax (such as Section 71B of I.T. Act and Section Page 13 of 16 ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
72 of I.T. Act which allow losses to be carried forward). Useful reference may also be made to in the Ratanchand Lallumal 4 ITR 189 (All.), Jagannath Ram Dayal CIT 18 ITR 375 (All.); M.K Muhammad Ibrahim vs. CIT 10 ITR 64 (Mad.), CIT vs. Jug Sah Muni Lal Sah 7 ITR 522 (Patna), CIT vs. Planters Co. Ltd. 123 ITR 648 (Mad.), CIT vs. Spunpipe 141 ITR 246 (Guj.), Debaprasanna Mulcharjee vs. CIT 20 ITR 293 (Cal.), CIT vs. Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (All.) and CIT vs. Partabmull Rameshwar 107 ITR 526 (Cal.) for proposition that; even if certain income has escaped tax in the relevant assessment year, because of a device adopted by the assessee or otherwise, it does not entitle Revenue to assess the same as the income of any subsequent year when the mistake becomes apparent.
(4.2) In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, and the legal position we dispose off this appeal with the following directions. Firstly, in computation of assessee's total income for the year under consideration, we direct the AO to delete the additions in respect of those amounts which were invested by the Assessee in earlier years i.e. before previous year 2008-09 relevant for A.Y. 2009-10. The AO is directed to quantify this amount while giving effect to this order. Secondly, we also direct the AO to delete the addition amounting to Rs.6,05,000/- which was made by the assessee during the year under consideration through cheque transactions of the assessee in her bank accounts in Allahabad Bank and Punjab National Bank; because, as stated earlier, it is not disputed that the assessee had sufficient deposits in her bank account at the beginning of the year to explain the source of aforesaid transactions by cheque. Thirdly, as far as investment totaling aforesaid amount of Rs.6,53,100/- in cash is Page 14 of 16 ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
concerned, we restore the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to pass a fresh order on merits on this limited issue after considering the explanation of the assessee. At this stage we are expressing no opinion on merits of the explanation tendered by the assessee. The Assessing Officer will decide the issue on this limited point in accordance with law and facts of the case.
(5) By way of abundant caution, we wish to clarify that this order is limited in its application to A.Y. 2009-10, which is the year under consideration for this appeal filed by assessee. Undisputedly, the investment in property has been made by the assessee partly in this year and partly in other years. Undisputedly deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee include deposits made in earlier years. Our observations, directions and order are applicable only for this particular appeal filed by assessee for A.Y. 2009-10. As no other appeal for any year is before us; we decline to express any opinion for any other year.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(AMIT SHUKLA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 31.10.2018
Pooja/-
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT NEW DELHI
Page 15 of 16
ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Km. Preeti Singh.
Date of dictation 26.10.2018
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating .10.2018
Member
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT 31.10.2018 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order Page 16 of 16