Once the assessee was able to explain the source of deposits in the bank based on the cash book, which were admittedly not disputed and rejected by the AO, no addition on the basis of the bank deposit can be made

 627 total views

Once the assessee was able to explain the source of deposits in the bank based on the cash book, which were admittedly not disputed and rejected by the AO, no addition on the basis of the bank deposit can be made

Short Overview Once the assessee was able to explain source of deposits in the bank based on the cash book, which were admittedly not disputed and rejected by the AO, therefore, no addition on the basis of the bank deposit could be made out.

AO totaled the cash deposits in various bank accounts at Rs. 63,63,500.00 and added the same in the income of the assessee. The main argument of the AO while adding these amount was that assessee had shown the total medical receipts amounting to Rs. 18,22,680 and after deducting the expenses according to him the net profit comes to Rs. 6,33,343 and that these deposits cannot be made out of the income of the year, hence these deposited amounts were income from undisclosed source. CIT(A) deleted the addition.

 It is held that  Admittedly, the AO had confirmed that the amount deposited in the bank were found duly recorded in the cash book. The revenue before Tribunal during the course of arguments and also in the written submissions have not disputed the correctness of the cashbook. Further, it was also not the case of the AO that the cash book maintained by the assessee was incorrect. In view of the above. once the assessee was able to explain the source of deposits in the bank based on the cash book, which were admittedly not disputed and rejected by the AO, therefore, no addition on the basis of the bank deposit can be made out and accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue was liable to be dismissed.

Decision: In assessee’s favour.

IN THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH

LALIET KUMAR, J.M. & MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.

ACIT v. Dr. Anil Kumar Verma

ITA No. 274/Agra/2013, C.O. No. 22/Agra/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10)

4 September, 2019

Appellant by: Waseem Arashad, Sr. Departmental Representative

Respondent by: S.C. Jain & S.K. Bajpai, CA

ORDER

Laliet Kumar, J.M.

Present appeal and cross objection are being filed by the Revenue and the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Agra for the assessment year 2009-10. The following grounds have been raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 274/Agr/2013 :–

“1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 62,13,500 out of addition of Rs. 63,63,500 made by assessing officer on account of cash Deposit in bank accounts without appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee has introduced cash amounting to Rs. 31 lacs in the cash book on different dates from “cash in safe” and the assessee has shown professional receipts of only Rs. 18,22,680 and interest income of Rs. 6,06,073 for the assessment year 2009-10.

  1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred In law and on facts In glossing over the fact that the assessee never produced any sundry creditor before the assessing officer as desired by the latter and never furnished copies of ITR and bank statements of the sundry creditors, thus the addition of Rs. 63,63,500
  2. The Id, Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition of Rs. 5,98,306 to Rs. 46,794 under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee has also vested his capital in Sai Om Developers, Bajaj Alianz, FDR, shares in Sahara etc and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the donation of Rs. 93,67,242 was given out of the assessee’s capital and not from his borrowed funds.
  3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 85,000 on account of unexplained investment made in purchase of car without properly appreciating the facts of case that the assessee did not contradict the statement given by him during the course of the survey conducted when the amount was surrendered and it was only towards the fag end left for completion of the assessment that an affidavit was filed by the assessee denying investment.
  4. The order of Id Commissioner (Appeals) being erroneous in laws and on facts deserves to be quashed and that the order of assessing officer to be restored.
  5. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any or more ground or grounds of appeal as may be deemed fit at time of hearing of appeal.”
  6. The grounds raised by the assessee in the cross objection read as under :–

“(1) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in affirming addition of Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of cash deposit in the SB account of Mrs. Renu Verma, who is independent Income Tax Assessee.

(2) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in affirming addition of Rs. 1,50,0007 in the account of Loan received by account payee cheque on 21-04-2008, wrongly entered in the account of Mr. Bharat Bansal.

(3) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in affirming addition of Rs. 46,794 under section 36(1)(iii) in respect interest paid to Syndicate Bank.

(4) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in affirming addition of Rs. 92,626 in respect of interest paid to Barklay Finance with out deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia).

(5) That the departmental appeal is bad in law as well as on facts and is liable to be dismissed.

(6) For the reasons discussed above and to be argued at the time of hearing, respondent pray for relief.

(7) The respondent craves leave to add or amend any ground of cross objection.”

Assessee submission

ITA No. 274/Aera/2012

  1. First Ground relates to deletion of Rs. 62,13,500.00 out of total addition of Rs. 63,63,500.00 made by the learned assessing officer, the learned assessing officer totaled the cash deposits in various 7 bank accounts at Rs. 63,63,500.00 and added the same in the income of the assessee. The main argument of the assessing officer while adding these amount is that assessee has shown the total medical receipts amounting to Rs. 18,22,680 and after deducting the expenses according to him the net profit comes to Rs. 6,33,343 and that these deposits cannot be made out of the income of the year, hence these amounts were deposited was income from undisclosed source.
  2. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue had submitted that the order passed by the learned Commissioner is required to be interfered as the source of deposit were not explained by the assessee before the Assessing officer/Commissioner.
  3. The learned Departmental Representative had filed the written submissions and flow chart in this regard and in the said flow chart it was submitted as under :–
  4. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee had submitted that the assessee had given reply dtd. 29-11-2013/before the assessing officer in which he explained each deposits of each bank account and explained that he maintain regular books of accounts in the form of cashbook ad ledger since long and these accounts were duly audited and audited balance sheet, profit & loss a/c and other details were filed before the assessing officer and these deposits in bank were by debited in the regularly maintained cashbook or were bank transfers from another bank account or out of loan taken during the year which were deposited in the cashbook and deposited in the bank. Thus each deposit entry in the bank was fully explained from the cashbook maintained by the assessee.

4.1 Further, the learned Authorised Representative had submitted that, a detailed reply was filed before the Commissioner Appeal getting enclosed in the paper-book and discussed at page 11 to page 16 para 4.1 to 4.3 of the Commissioner Appeals order and assessee reply was sent for comments to the assessing officer. The assessing officer in this remand report dtd. 17-5-2013 referred to para 4.4 of Commissioner Appeal order and page 18 of the Commissioner Appeals order and the assessing officer concluded as under:–

“It is noted that amount deposited in the bank account mentioned at 1,2,3,56 were fully recorded in cash book. As regard bank a/c no. 4047 in the name of Renu Verma mentioned at SI. No. 4, it is submitted that the account was opened on 21-10-2008 by deposit Rs. 1.59 lacs on 23-10-2008 and loan of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was given to the assessee. Thus, it is assumed that the assessee first deposited his money in the account of Renu Verma, sister in law of the assessee and thereafter loan taken from Renu Verma.” Commissioner Appeal thereafter in para 4.5 considered this remand report and deleted the additions.

  1. In respect to amount withdrawn cash from safe, the assessee has filed the copy of audited balance sheet for the period ending 31-3-2009 at page 47 and audit report ending 31-3-2009 at page 74 of the Paper Book which will show that assessee has filed the copy of audited balance sheet for the period ending 31-3-2008 at page 47–73 and for the period ending 31-3-2009 page 74–104 at page 69 Paper Book, there is a capital a/c for the period ending 31-3-2008 on 30-3-2008, there is a debit of Rs. 20 lakhs cash in safe in the capital a/c of the assessee and thereafter at page 101 this Rs. 20 lakhs drawn on 30-3-2008 has been credited in the capital account on 1-4-2008 has brought in the capital a/c. Thus the credit of Rs. 20 lakhs on 1-4-2008 is out of withdrawal of Rs. 20 lakhs on 30-3-2008. This is a regular feature of assessee whenever cash is excess in cash in hand, it is kept in the safe on the last day accounting year and deposited in the 1st day of next year again.
  2. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the assessing officer in the remand report had confirmed that the amount deposited in the bank mentioned at Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 (paragraph 4.4 of Commissioner order) were found duly recorded in the cash book. The Revenue before us during the course of arguments and also in the written submissions have not disputed the correctness of the cashbook. Further, it was also not the case of the assessing officer that the cash book maintained by the assessee was incorrect. In view of the above, once the assessee was able to explain the source of deposits in the bank based on the cash book, which were admittedly not disputed and rejected by the assessing officer, therefore, no addition on the basis of the bank deposit can be made out and accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed.
  3. With respect to CO filed by the assessee, ground No. 1, none of the parties before us have made any arguments. The assessee during the course of proceedings had filed the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 for Smt. Renu Verma, wherein the deposit in the bank have been duly explained. In view of the above, the assessee was able to satisfactorily explain the deposit in the bank of Renu Verma. Further, we are of the opinion that merely possession of passbook of Renue Verma with assessee would not give rise to any suspicion, more particularly, when Smt. Renu Verma happens to be the wife of assessee, which is contrary to normal practice.
  4. In view of the above, ground No. 1 of the Cross objection is allowed.
  5. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue Appeal pertains to Credit in the account of creditors, addition in the account of creditors.
  6. The learned assessing officer added Rs. 56.00 lakhs in respect of cash deposits in the account of various creditors. According to assessing officer, the confirmations were filed, but no copy of IT returns and computation and bank statement not filed. Assessee has not proved the deposit, as he added the same in the income. (para-4 of assessment order)
  7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee have filed the submissions and explained each and every loan transactions. The submissions of the assessee were sent back to the assessing officer for sending the remand report. The assessing officer in remand report has examined the submissions and the documents furnished thereto. In the remand report, in para-3 at page 32 & 33 of the paper book, it was mentioned as under :–

“3. Unsecured Loans–

On perusal of balance sheet, it was noticed that assesses has shown unsecured loans from the following persons namely Shri Arun Chadda, Bharat Bansal, Surendra Poddar, Nisha Agrawal, Renu Verma, sachidanand Nayak, Sudha bansal & Friends, relatives & others amounting to Rs. 51,88,2377-. The assessee was required to produce all the above persons along with their copy of income tax return, computation of income and bank pass book. The assessee has submitted only their confirmation but not furnished copy of ITR, Computation of income and bank statements. Hence the amount of Rs. 56,00,000 was treated as income of the assessee from income from other sources and added to his income. As per the details furnished before your goodself, the opening balance as on 1-4-2008 Rs. 32,53,2507-, credit during the year Rs. 26,74,559 and closing balance Rs. 51,88,2377-. In this regard it is submitted that–

  1. On perusal of balance sheet as on 31-3-2008 reveals that the closing balance as on 31-3-2008 of unsecured-loan is Rs. 21,64,250. The same would be the opening balance as on 1-4-2008 while the opening balance shown Rs. 32,53,250 which includes ICICI p/loan amounting to Rs. 10,89,000.
  2. Some confirmations out of the confirmations filed during the assessment proceedings are only signed by the assessee not signed by the concerned party such as Bharat Bansal, Nisha Agrawal, Sachidanand Nayak.
  3. In the case of Renu Verma, it is mentioned that the bank account was opened on 21-10-2008 by depositing cash of Rs. 1,50,0007-and Rs l,000/~ and the loan was given on 23-10-2008. Thereafter no transaction was made in this account during the year.
  4. The out standing balance or transactions in some cases in the confirmation filed during the assessment proceedings and filed before your goodself differs. As per the confirmations filed by the assessee before the assessing officer and before your honour, it is noticed that the transactions in the case of Shri Bharat Bansal and Nisha Agrawal are as under :–
S. No. Name of the party Description As per confirmation before assessing officer As per confirmation before Commissioner (Appeals)
1. Bharat Bansal Opening Balance 1,57,875 1,57,875
21-4-2008 credit 1,50,000
17-6-2008 Intt Paid 5,625
18-12-2008 credit 1,50,000 1,50,000
17-6-2008 debit 13,500
Closing balance 4,57,875 3,00,000
2. Nisha Agrawal Opening Balance 3,68,375 3,68,375
17-6-2008 Intt Paid 13,125
1-7-2008 credit 1,00,000 1,00,000
17-6-2008 debit 31,500
Closing balance 4,68,375 4,50,000

From the above, it is clear that–

  1. In the case of Bharat Bansal, the assessee has shown fresh unsecured loan of Rs. 3 lacs while the loan of Rs. 1.50 lacs was confirmed by the party. The closing balances of unsecured loans is Rs. 3,00,000 while the assessee in his books of account shown the same at Rs. 4,57,875.”
  2. The Commissioner after considering the remand report have tabulated the same in the order in pargraph 5.3 to the following effect :
SI. No. Name Op. Balance 01-04-2008 Debit during the year Credit during the year Closing Balance 31-03-2009
1. Bharat Bansal 157875 300000 457875
2. Chandra Bhan Verma 268000 268000
3. ICICI P/Loan 1089000 453072 635928
4. K.B. Sales 225000 225000
5. IMisha Agarwal 368375 100000 468375
6. Sachinand Naiyak 160000 160000
7. Saroj Verma 315000 315000
8. Shiva Sales 400000 400000
9. Sudha Bansal 100000 100000
10. Surendra Poddar 170000 170000
11. Shri Arun Chadha 500000 500000
12. Axis Bank 0860101163454 117500 481933 364433
13. Barkley Finance 169000 942626 773626
14. Renu Verma 150000 150000
15.. Shree Timber Co. 200000 200000
TOTAL 3253250 739572 2674559 5188237
  1. The Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the remand report had deleted the addition of Rs. 51,88,237 and had confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 on account of unexplained loan from Mr. Bharat Bansal.
  2. The Revenue is in appeal on account of the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals).
  3. In this regard the learned Departmental Representative had drawn our attention to the written submissions which were to the following effect :–

AS REGARD CREDITORS

ARUN CHADDHA

BHARAT BANSAL

SURENDRA POADAR

NISHA AGGARWAL

RENUE VERMA

SACCHINAND NAYAR

SUVIDHA BANSAL & SONS

  1. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee had submitted that the assessee in his reply dtd. 26-2-2013 before the Commissioner (Appeals) had submitted that total credit in the Balance Sheet were only of Rs. 51,88,237 and not Rs. 56 lakhs and further out of this Rs. 32,53,250 was the old opening balance in loan account coming over since last year which were opening balance during this year. Hence, fresh loan during the year amounting to Rs. 26,74,559 and assessee filed the ITR and computation and bank statement of all these persons before the Commissioner Appeal and Commissioner Appeal discussed this matter at page 19 para 5 of the appellant order and forwarded the assessee reply to the assessing officer for comments.
  2. The learned Authorised Representative had also drawn our attention to letter dtd. 21-12-2011, whereby assessee had requested assessing officer to summon these creditors for examination which the ITO did not summon them and he was duty bound to enforce the attendance of these persons witness as per decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nathu Ram V/s Commissioner 1963 49 ITR page 561. The learned assessing officer in his remand report accepted the contention of the assessee in his remand report furnished by him as per page 31–34 of the Paper Book. At page 32, he conceded that creditors account were of Rs. 51,88,237 and not Rs. 56.00 lakhs and that opening credit balance was Rs. 32,53,350 including ICICI loan of Rs. 10.89 lakhs, but he objected to only 2 cash credits in the account of Renu Verma and cash of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was deposited in the bank first and then cheque was issued to assessee which according to him cash was given by the assessee. In the account of Bharat Bansal, he pointed out that out of credit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs i.e. 1.5 lakhs + 1.5 lakhs, he has confirmed only credit of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, hence Rs. 1.5 lakhs remained unexplained.
  3. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. The assessing officer in the remand report had confirmed the opening balance as on 1-4-2008 pertaining to these creditors were Rs. 32,53,250 and the creditor during the year were Rs. 26,74,559. The creditors during the year were as under :
Sl. No. Name Amount
1. Bharat Bansal 3,00,000
2. Nisha Agarwal 1,00,000
3. Sh. Arun Chadda 5,00,000
4. Axis Bank 4,81,933
5. Barclay Finance 9,42,626
6. Renu Verma 1,50,000
7. Shree Timber Company 2,00,000
  1. As is clear from the tabulation hereinabove that the assessing officer had made the addition even in respect of Axis Bank and Barclay Finance. This shows the total non-application of mind by the assessing officer. In respect of these two creditors, we have no doubts that these are duly explained creditors being the financial Institution/bank, hence, the addition of Rs. 4,81,933 and Rs. 9,42,626 are deleted.
  2. With respect to Renu Verma, we had already mentioned that the deposit in the bank account of Renu Verma was duly explained by her in the return of income filed by her. Further, she had also explained that the said amount was duly given by her to her husband. In our view, the assessee had discharged his onus and therefore, the addition made by the assessing officer qua Renu Verma was uncalled for. Further, the assessing officer was asked by the assessee during the assessment proceedings to summon all these creditors including Renu Verma, but the assessing officer failed to exercise his powers under the Act. Hence, for this reason also, this addition is deleted.
  3. In respect to the creditor Arun Chaddha, the confirmation of account was placed by the assessee in the paper book at page 129 and 130. The amount of Rs. 5 lacs was paid by Shri Arun Chaddha through cheque drawn on Shreyas Gramin Bank, SB 791. The above said fact was not disputed by the assessing officer in the remand report at page 32 & 33 of the paper book. In view of the above, the addition made by the assessing officer on account of creditor Arun Chadda is deleted.
  4. In respect of Nisha Agarwal, at page 33 of the paper book, as per confirmation before assessing officer, a closing balance of Rs. 468375 was mentioned whereas as per confirmation before Commissioner (Appeals), it was mentioned as Rs. 4,50,000. In our view, the difference between the two is a very small amount and moreover, the creditor in the books of account of the assessee are required to be seen and in the present case, the amount shown in the assessee’s account was less as compared to the confirmation before the assessing officer. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to uphold the action of assessing officer and accordingly, the amount of Rs. 468375 is deleted.
  5. In respect of Shree Timber, the assessee has placed at page 146 to 188 the confirmation from Shree Timber through its proprietor Sh. Akhil Bansal for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000. Even the return of income was placed on record for the relevant assessment year. Since the identity, capacity and creditworthiness of the creditor are beyond the shade of doubt, therefore, the deletion made by the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be upheld.

Ground No. 2 of the Revenue appeal and ground-2 of C.O.

  1. In respect to Bharat Bansal, the learned Departmental Representative has brought to our notice the copy of the confirmation filed by the assessee before the assessing officer and it was submitted that in the confirmation filed by the assessee, only an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was shown as credit in the books of account of Shri Bharat Bansal and the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was received on 1-12-2008.
  2. In rebuttal, the learned Authorised Representative had submitted that the Bharat Bansal is a regular income-tax assessee and is maintaining mercantile method of accounting and therefore, there is difference in the books of assessee and that of Bharat Bansal.
  3. We have heard the rival contention and perused material available on record. The confirmation of account clearly shows the receipt of Rs. 1,50,000 through the banking channel and therefore, the amount remained to be unpaid by the assessee was only Rs. 1,50,000. The said amount was not reflected in the books of account of the assessee. In view of the above, the assessee failed to give any explanation for the credit of Rs. 1,50,000. In view of the above, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as the assessee’s explanation in respect of Rs. 1,50,000 is accepted on the basis of the books of account of the Bharat Bansal. However, the C.O. of the assessee in respect of remaining Rs. 1,50,000 which was sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we are of the opinion that the assessee’s explanation is without any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
  4. In the result, ground No. 2 of the Revenue appeal is dismissed and ground No. 2 of the assessee’s Cross-objection is also dismissed.
  5. Ground No. 3 relates to disallowance of Rs. 5,98,306 made by the assessing officer while Rs. 49,794 confirmed by the Commissioner Appeal. The learned assessing officer discussed this matter at para 3 at page 7-8. According to him, donation of Rs. 93,67,242 made by the assessee to Shri Sai Ram Charitable Trust is not for business purpose and is out of the transfer of borrowed funds. Assessee submitted that assessee has own capital of Rs. 61,94,824 and also interest free loan and no interest can be disallowed. However, the Commissioner Appeal found at para 6.6 page 32 that assessee capital is Rs. 61,94,824 and interest fee loan of Rs. 17,83,000 aggregating about Rs. 80 lakhs and donation has been made from Syndicate Bank a/c to Sai Charitable Trust who has charged interest of Rs. 46,794 who has direct nexus with the donation given and he confirmed the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 46,794.
  6. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The learned Departmental Representative had submitted that in para 5, the assessing Officer had mentioned that the interest bearing funds were transferred to M/s. Sai Ram Charitable Trust on 6-1-2009, 27-1-2009 and 10-3-2009. Further, it was submitted that the assessee has invested from its capital to M/s. Ganesh Oxygen, Sai Om Developers, Bajaj Alliance, FDR, shares in Sahara and thus, the own funds were not available for transferring the amount to M/s. Sai Ram Charitable Trust.
  7. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative has submitted that the assessee’s own capital was Rs. 61,94,824 and unsecured interest free loans of Rs. 17,83,000 were also available. The said amount was utilized by the assessee for making the investment in Sai Charitable Trust. The learned Authorised Representative had also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter ofHero Cycles (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 4897 (SC) & Ors.
  8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In our view this ground and the other grounds adjudicated by us hereinabove in the appeal of the Revenue were not required to be decided on merit, as by the Circular, dated 8-8-2019, the Board has instructed to withdraw all the appeals having tax effect of less than Rs. 50 lacs before the Tribunal. In view of the above, we are leaving this issue open and we are not deciding this issue in the present appeal. Accordingly, this ground of the Revenue appeal is also dismissed.
  9. The assessee in the C.O. had challenged the additions sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of our finding recorded in paragraph 31, we do not wish to adjudicate this ground of the C.O. Further, we are also of the opinion that the assessee was only above to show the availability of Rs. 80 lacs in the form of own capital and unsecured interest free loans. The remaining amount, have not been explained by the assessee. In view of the above, ground No. 3 of the C.O. is dismissed.
  10. Ground No. 4 of the Revenue appeal is also dismissed in view of our finding recorded in para 31 herein above.

Ground No. 4 of the C.O.

  1. Ground No. 4 of the CO relates to disallowance of Rs. 92,626 under section 40(a)(ia)of the Income tax. Act in respect of interest paid to Barklay Finance Co. without deduction of IDS.
  2. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The payment was made to Barklay Finance Co. which is a bank and is assessed to Income Tax. In our considered opinion, the assessee was not required to deduct the TDS while making the payment of interest and principal to Barklay Finance CO. The bank is liable to be taxed on the interest income and it is not the case of the assessing officer that the bank has not declared the interest income in its return of income and has not paid the taxes. In our view this issue is of applicability to proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the matter ofAnsal Land Mark, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3482 (Del-HC) wherein Delhi High Court has followed the decision of Agra Tribunal in the matter of Rajeev Agarwal. In Rajiv Agarwal v/s Additional Commissioner in ITA No. 337/Agra/2013 for assessment year 2006-07 have taken a view that if payee has paid tax on the income received by him as per amendment under section 201(1) with effect from 1-4-2013 which is applicable for retrospective effect from 2005-06.
  3. Respectfully following the decision of Delhi High court in the matter ofAnsal Land Mark (supra) we allow ground No. 4 of the C.O. of the assessee.
  4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C.O. of the assessee is partly allowed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.