TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertificates, bank accounts and source 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, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 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 Paper Book Date Amount Ch. No. Bank Remark/Source of Credit in Bank 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 Mahindra Payment from Opening 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 Mahindra Payment from Opening 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 Mahindra Opening Balance in Bank Rs. 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 ICICI Bank Payment fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt 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 Declared Deductions Personal Exp. Credit 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....namely Ld. CIT(A) and AO. (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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorizing 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 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 o....