S. Iqbal Singh, Barnala V. ITO, Barnala

ITA 101/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8497 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH KUMAR GARG
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 101/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 S. IQBAL SINGH, VS. THE ITO, S/O S.GURDEV SINGH, BARNALA DISTT. BARNALA PAN NO.BGTPS3661P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUBHASH KUMAR GARG RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K.SAINI ORDER THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F CIT(A), PATIALA DATED 27.11.2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04, AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL:- 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED WHILE SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 1,07,600/-. THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS NOT ALLOWED THE CREDIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME RS. 6Q1,600/- AND BANK WITHDRAWAL RS. 25,000/-. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN INVESTMENT I N PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 9.12.2002 FOR RS. 6,83,700/- + RS. 6,83,700/- IN THE NAMES OF HIS SONS SHRI BANT SINGH AND SHRI ANATAR S INGH. THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY WAS EXPLAINED TO BE MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS FROM STATE BANK OF PATIALA, BHADAUR ON 9.12.2002 AMOUNTING 2 TO RS. 8,20,000/- AND FURTHER WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 4,0 4,000/- FROM MALWA GRAMIN BANK, BHADAUR ON 9.12.2002. THE ASSESSEE EX PLAINED THAT RS. 93,000/- WAS CONTRIBUTED OUT OF LEASE MONEY RECEIVE D BY HIS SONS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 6 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER ACCEPTED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS OF RS. 12,33,000 /- I.E. WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS AS ACCORDING TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT T HEREOF. THE BALANCE INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,34,400/- WAS ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE. BEFOR E THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE LEASE AGR EEMENT IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF HIS CHILDREN AND THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 93,000/- WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A). OUT OF BALANCE INVESTMENT, A SUM OF RS. 25,000/- WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INVEST ED OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 27.6.2002, WHICH WAS REJEC TED BY THE CIT(A). 4. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THA T THOUGH THE GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN RAISED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF R S. 1,07,600/- BUT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 25, 000/- I.E. THE BENEFIT OF CREDIT NOT BEING ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF WITHDRAWAL M ADE FROM HIS SAVING ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED AR REFERRED TO THE COPY OF TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF MALWA GRAMIN BANK FROM WHICH THE SAID RS. 25,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON 27.6.2002. WHEN CONFRONTED, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT LAND WAS PURCHASED IN DECEMBER 2002 AND THE CASH WAS WITHDRA WN ON 27.6.2002. THE LEARNED DR IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE R ETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR FROM MILK WAS SHOWN AT RS. 45,500/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 2,35,000/- WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE PERUSAL OF THE 3 ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD REVEAL THAT IN ADDITION TO T HE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION, THE ASSESSEE HAD MAD E INVESTMENT IN OTHER LANDS DURING THE YEAR AND THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, RS. 37,500/- HAS BEEN UTILIZED ON 13.5.2002 AND RS. 1,36,250/- HAS BEEN UTILIZED ON 25.11.2002 OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARAS 3 & 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS RS. 1,73,750/- AND AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 2,35 ,000/-, THE BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 62,000/-, COUPL ED WITH CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 25,000/- IN JUNE 2002 AND OTHER I NCOME OF RS. 45,500/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER POIN TED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 1,45,000/- ON 27 .7.2002 AND THE CASH OF RS. 25,000/- WITHDRAWN IN JUNE 2002, THUS IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN DECEMBER, 2002. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE THAT NO BENEFIT OF SAID CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 25,000/- CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE CASH HAS BEEN UTILIZ ED BEFORE ITS INVESTMENT IN DECEMBER 2000. THE LEARNED AR IN REJOINDER SUBM ITTED THAT THE FUNDS WERE BEING CIRCULATED AND HENCE THE AVAILABILITY FO R INVESTMENTS. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED THE RECORDS. THE LIMITED DISPUTE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 25,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MAD E OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CL AIMS THAT IT WITHDRAWN RS. 25,000/- ON 25.6.2002 FROM THE MALWA GRAMIN BANK, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH IT FOR INVESTMENT IN AGRIC ULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS MADE ON 9.12.2002. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROU ND OF APPEAL HAS 4 RAISED THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,07,600/- BUT THE LEARNED AR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT NO PROOF WAS AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF BALANCE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE ISSUE WAS RESTRICTED TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,000/- ONLY. I FIND NO MERIT IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WI TH REGARD TO THE SAID SUM OF RS. 25,000/- IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING INVESTED ITS AVAILABLE INCOME / FUNDS IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OTHER THAN THE LAND IN QUESTION AND BALANCE BEING UTILIZED FOR DEPOSIT IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 27.7.2002. THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOM E SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 2,35,000/- AND OTHER INCOME OF RS . 45,500/- OUT OF WHICH AS PER PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AS SESSEE HAD INVESTED RS. 37,500/- AND AS PER PARA 5, RS. 1,36,250/- WERE IN VESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE SOURCE WAS THE AGRICUL TURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN TURN HAD DEPOSITED C ASH OF RS. 1,45,000/- ON 27.7.2002 AND THEREAFTER THERE IS NO CASH WITHDRAWA L FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE, THEORY OF CIRCULATION OF FUND PROP OUNDED BY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT STAND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF RS. 25,000/- AND IN VIEW OF THE ADMISSION OF LEARNE D AR IN RESPECT OF SOURCE OF BALANCE INVESTMENT, CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,07,600/-. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010. SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 RKK 5 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR