Case Law Details

Case Name : Asha Saini Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : ITA. No. 5529/Del/2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/05/2022
Related Assessment Year : 2010-11

Asha Saini Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

It is not a case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee was the ultimate beneficiary of the amounts deposited in the bank account. Hand-writing expert report dated 2.12.2017 and copy of FIR available at assessee’s paper book clearly reveals that the hand-writing expert clearly opined that the disputed and sample signatures of the appellant had been written by different persons and disputed and sample signatures are completely different from each other.

Copy of FIR registered by Police Station Civil Lines, Muzaffar Nagar, dated 11.09.2018 also supports the explanation and case of the assessee and also establishes bonafide and legal action taken by the assessee against the culprits. Therefore, I decline to accept contention of the authorities below that the impugned bank account with ING Vaisya Bank Ltd., belongs to the assessee and it was opened by the assessee by using her identity and residential proof. Therefore, I am compelled to hold that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on the instance of such bank account which has been disowned by the appellant.

It is pertinent to mention that the bank account has been opened in the name of Smt. Asha Rani whereas the name of present appellant is Smt. Asha Saini. So far as similarity in the address is concerned, when the identity and residential proof of the assessee has been misused by the culprits, then it is obvious that the actual address would match with the address mentioned in the bank documents, but this fact does not wipe out the other substantial evidences placed on the record by the appellant. Therefore, addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) stands deleted.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 21.06.2018, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffar Nagar [hereinafter referred to as CIT (Appeals)] for assessment year 2010–11.

2. In this case the sole controversy revolves around the contention of assessee, Smt. Asha Saini that the Savings bank account No.623010014000 in the ING Vaisya Bank Ltd., Siddhartha Colony, Muzaffar Nagar branch does not belong to her and it was not opened in the name of appellant, Smt. Asha Saini, but was opened in the name of Smt. Asha Rani, a resident of 677, Laddhawala, Muzaffar Nagar.

3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee first of all drew my attention towards page Nos. 36 to 39 of assessee’s paper book and submitted that the specimen signature in the bank record were matched with the signature of appellant by a qualified hand-writing expert, but he opined that the disputed and sample signatures are written by different persons and these disputed and sample signatures are completely different from each other, which clearly shows that the assessee had not opened any bank account. The ld. Counsel further drew my attention to page Nos. 4 to 14 of assessee’s paper book and submitted that at the instance of appellant, Smt. Asha Saini, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar, registered a First Information Report No. 0652/2018 on 11.09.2018 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) against 9 persons including some bank officials which also shows and establishes beyond doubt the bonafide of the appellant dis-owning the impugned bank account opened by some other lady, Smt. Asha Rani, by using the identity proof and address of the appellant. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not right in making addition in the hands of the assessee and the ld. CIT (Appeals) was also not correct in confirming the same.

4. Replying to the above the ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the assessment order and submitted that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he was compelled to pass assessment order under Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 27.12.2017 and during first appellate proceedings the ld. CIT (Appeals) after considering the explanation and stand of the assessee rightly confirmed the addition as the account was opened by the assessee and impugned amounts were deposited by her and now to evade tax liability, she is dis-owning the impugned bank account. Placing re-joinder to the addition, the ld. Counsel submitted that there is no iota of any evidence that the amount deposited in the impugned bank account was ever withdrawn or utilized by the appellant or diverted to the other bank account of any relative, person, friend or family member. Therefore, in view of AR and hand-writing expert, it is very clear that the impugned bank account does not belong to the assessee and no addition can be made on the basis of deposits made therein by some forged persons in the hands of assessee.

5. On careful consideration of rival submissions, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee was the ultimate beneficiary of the amounts deposited in the bank account. Hand-writing expert report dated 2.12.2017 and copy of FIR available at assessee’s paper book clearly reveals that the hand-writing expert clearly opined that the disputed and sample signatures of the appellant had been written by different persons and disputed and sample signatures are completely different from each other. Copy of FIR registered by Police Station Civil Lines, Muzaffar Nagar, dated 11.09.2018 also supports the explanation and case of the assessee and also establishes bonafide and legal action taken by the assessee against the culprits. Therefore, I decline to accept contention of the authorities below that the impugned bank account with ING Vaisya Bank Ltd., belongs to the assessee and it was opened by the assessee by using her identity and residential proof. Therefore, I am compelled to hold that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on the instance of such bank account which has been disowned by the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that the bank account has been opened in the name of Smt. Asha Rani whereas the name of present appellant is Smt. Asha Saini. So far as similarity in the address is concerned, when the identity and residential proof of the assessee has been misused by the culprits, then it is obvious that the actual address would match with the address mentioned in the bank documents, but this fact does not wipe out the other substantial evidences placed on the record by the appellant. Therefore, addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) stands deleted.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on : 11/05/2022.

Download Judgment/Order

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Telegram

taxguru on telegram GROUP LINK

Review us on Google

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2022
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930