INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "F": NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 1651/Del/2015
(Assessment Year: 2011-12)
Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa, Vs. ITO,
43, Pusa Road, Ward-33(4),
New Delhi New Delhi
PAN: AAAPW3882G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Ashish Goel, CA
Revenue by: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 18/12/2018
Date of pronouncement 31/01/2019
ORDER
PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, New Delhi dated 16/01/2015
for assessment year 2011-12 passed ex parte, wherein, the following
grounds of appeal were raised:-
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the
learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad,
both in the eye of law and on facts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has
erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the order without giving
assessee an opportunity of being heard in clear violation of principle
of natural justice.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of an
amount of Rs.66,72,000/- made by AO on account of deposits in
bank account.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
erred, both on facts and in law, in ignoring the fact that the amount
of Rs.66,72,000/- includes an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- which was
deposited in bits and pieces belonging to the mother of the
assessee.
Page | 1
Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa Vs. ITO,
ITA No. 1651/Del/2015
(Assessment Year: 2011-12)
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of an
amount of Rs.1,75,02,000/- made by AO on account of deposits in
bank account, Syndicate Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of an
amount of Rs.41,733/- made by AO on account of bank interest.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of an
amount of Rs.6,72,834/- made by AO on account of bank interest.
8. (i) That the above addition has been confirmed ignoring the fact
that the amount of Rs.4,55,000/- is interest earned on FDR of Sh.
Jatinder Wadhwa, brother of the assessee, 's such no addition can
be made in assessee's hand.
(ii) That the above addition tantamount to double addition, as the
same amount has been declared and included as income by Sh.
Jatinder Wadhwa in his return of income.
9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has
erred, both on facts and in law, in ignoring the fact that the amount
of Rs.6,72,834/- includes Rs.63,000/- being added by the assessee
in his computation of income, the said addition tantamount to
double addition."
2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual who filed
his return of income on 12-12-2017 of Rs. 479985/-. In the return of
income the assessee disclosed the business income, capital gain and
other sources. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and it was
noted that as per AIR the assessee has deposited cash in the savings
bank account with Syndicate Bank of Rs. 18247000/-. The assessee
explained that cash of deposit of Rs. 11575000/- was given to him by his
brother who is staying in USA after withdrawing the same from his non-
resident account during the course of his visit in India. The assessee
submitted the confirmation and copy of the bank account of his brother.
The assessee further submitted that Rs. 20 lacs was lying with his mother
till her death and that money was also given to him by brother
assessee. This was supported by the affidavit of the brother of the
assessee. The ld AO granted the credit of the sum given by his brother
Page | 2
Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa Vs. ITO,
ITA No. 1651/Del/2015
(Assessment Year: 2011-12)
out of total cash deposit of Rs 18247000/- and made the addition of Rs.
6672000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Further addition was also made u/s 68 of
the act on account of cash deposits by the assessee in another account .
During the course of assessment proceedings it was noted that the
assessee has another account with the Syndicate Bank in which cash
deposit of Rs. 17502000/- was made. The ld AO was not replied to this
query by assessee and therefore same was added u/s 68 of the Act.
Therefore, ld AO has made two additions of cash deposited in two
different bank accounts of the assessee with Syndicate bank of Rs.
6672000/- and Rs. 17502000/- respectively. The assessment u/s 143(3)
was made on 28-02-2018 determining total income of Rs. 25368722/-.
The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who dismissed the
appeal of the assessee on merits but ex parte. Therefore, the assessee
is in appeal before us.
3. The ld AR submitted a detailed paper book. He submitted that the
assessee submitted a detailed reply vide page No. 12 and 13 of the paper
book with respect to the cash deposit of Rs. 18247000/-. It was
submitted that sum of Rs. 11575000/- was received from Mr. Jatinder
Wadhwa, Rs 20 lacs from his mother and further Rs. 8573343/- from his
brother only. This explanation is neither being considered by the ld AO
and by the ld CIT(A) with respect to the cash deposit of Rs. 17502000/-.
the assessee has also submitted the cash deposit as per page No. 20 of
its written submission but he further submitted that at page No. 25 the
bank passbook of the brother of assessee is submitted wherein, it is
apparent that assessee has withdrawn cash in earlier years. He further
referred to the certificate of Syndicate Bank wherein it has been stated
that Rs. 8573343.10 has been transferred from savings bank account of
Shri Jatinder Wadhwa to the savings bank account of the assessee. He
therefore, stated that all these evidences have not been considered by
the lower authorities.
Page | 3
Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa Vs. ITO,
ITA No. 1651/Del/2015
(Assessment Year: 2011-12)
4. Ld DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and
submitted that when the assessee has not submitted any details before
the lower authorities the additions has been rightly made and confirmed.
5. Ld AR in rejoinder submitted that the ld CIT(A) has also decided the
issue ex parte and without considering the submission on record. He
stated that even otherwise the ld CIT(A) has decided this issue without
granting proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He referred to
para No. 4 of the order of the ld CIT(A) and stated that the appeal of the
assessee has been decided stating that assessee is not interested in
pursuing the appeal. Even otherwise the order of ld CIT(A) is ex parte
and therefore reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee should
have been granted.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the
orders of the lower authorities. The AO has made the addition on account
of cash deposit in two Syndicate bank accounts of the assessee. The
partly relief is given by the ld AO on account of cash deposit by brother of
the assessee who is a non-resident Indian. However, with respect to the
other bank accounts in which cash is deposited of Rs. 17502000/-, it was
stated by the ld AO that assessee has not given any explanation. Ld AO
has also decided the appeal of the assessee ex parte. Before us
assessee has submitted a detailed paper book wherein the assessee has
submitted the details of the cash deposited during the year in both the
accounts along with explanation of deposit received from his brother .
It has further submitted the copy of the passbook of the brother of
assessee where earlier cash was withdrawn of substantial sum from the
bank account. The Syndicate bank account of the assessee also received
a credit of Rs. 8573343/- on 21-8-2017 source of which is also certified
by the Sr. Manager of the Syndicate Bank as received from his brother.
It is apparent that above sum is not a cash deposit but it is a transfer.
The ld AO considered the same as cash deposit. Further, with respect to
the sum of Rs. 20 lacs the assessee has also submitted an affidavit of his
Page | 4
Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa Vs. ITO,
ITA No. 1651/Del/2015
(Assessment Year: 2011-12)
brother who has given him Rs. 20 lacs. As this fact have not been verified
by the lower authorities and in view of the ex-parte order of the ld
CIT(A), we set aside the whole issue back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with
a direction to the assessee to submit the complete details and the
explanation before him within two months from the date of the order and
then the ld CIT(A) may examine the details and explanation submitted,
then decide the issue afresh after granting proper opportunity of hearing
to the assessee. In view of the above facts appeal of the assessee is
allowed with above direction for statistical purposes.
7. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2019. -Sd/-
-Sd/-
(AMIT SHUKLA) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated:31/01/2019
A K Keot
Copy forwarded to
1. Applicant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR:ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, New Delhi
Page | 5
|