Shri Kamla Kant Sharma, Bhopal V. THE ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 1012/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2389 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALCHAND

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHE, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1012/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 KAMLA KANT SHARMA, H.NO.20, CHITRAGUPT NAGAR, KOTRASULTANABAD, BHOPAL, / VS. ACIT - 1(1), BHOPAL ( REVENUE ) ( RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AXUPS7815A APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI LAL CHAND , CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 03.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.01.2018 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, BHOPAL, (IN SHORT CIT(A)), DATED 08.06.2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. 2. NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. APPLI CATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT IS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE AUTHORIZED RE PRESENTATIVE. IT IS STATED THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IS PRE OCCUPIED FOR DELIVERING A LECTURE ON GST MATTER WHICH IS NOT SUF FICIENT CAUSE FOR KAMLA KANT SHARMA 2 PLACING ADJOURNMENT. ACCORDINGLY APPLICATION SEEKIN G ADJOURNMENT IS REJECTED. THE APPEAL IS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, TH E ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.THAT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,62,000/- TO THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2. NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE FOR A SUM FOUND DURING T HE SEARCH WHEN THE SAME CAN BE PROPERLY EXPLAINED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND AFTERWARDS, AND ALSO WHEN IT IS DULY SUPPORTED BY A PROPER CASH FLOW STATEMENT. 3. GROUND NO.1 & 2 ARE INTERPRETED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THESE GROUNDS ARE THAT A SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT AT VARIOUS PREMISES. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PARTY DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH CASH OF RS.5,62,000/- WAS FOUND AT THE RESID ENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED CONTRADICTI ON IN THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER YET AGAIN GAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE BE FORE THE AO MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME. 4. AGAINST THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALSO AFTER CONSIDERING MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD CONFIRM THE ADDITION. 5. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL. 6. THE LD. DR TOOK US THROUGH ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GIVEN CATEGORICALLY FINDING ON FACTS WHICH IS NOT REBUTTE D BY THE ASSESSEE BY FURNISHING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL. THUS, HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE CONFIRMED. KAMLA KANT SHARMA 3 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR,PERUSED MATERIAL ON REC ORD. LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACTS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS BASED THE A DDITION MAINLY UPON THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE PRELIMINARY ST ATEMENT AND CONCLUDING STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. DURING THE ASSESSMENT AND DURING APPEAL, TH E APPELLANT HAS REITERATED HIS CONCLUDING STATEMENT. THE APPELL ANT HAS EXPLAINED THE CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH UNDE R TWO CATEGORIES: CASH OF RS.50,000, 30,000 & 15,000 AS B ELONGING TO SHRI. ANURAG SHARMA (VICE PRESIDENT OF THE ASKHAY S HAKTI SHIKSHAEVAM SOCIETY), FATHER-IN-LAW AND BROTHER-IN- LAW RESPECTIVELY, AND THE REMAINING CASH TO BE AS PER T HE CASH-FLOW STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSM ENT. NO CASH FLOW STATEMENT (CFS) WAS FILED DURING APPEAL. HOWEV ER, IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE CF S REFLECTS CASH-IN-HAND OF RS.3,19,175 ON 23.07.2009 (DATE OF SEARCH). THE SOURCE OF THIS CASH IN HAND HAS BEEN FURTHER EXPLAI NED TO BE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.7,00,000/- FOR SBI MADE ON 30.04.2 009. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE SHRIANURAG SHARMA, SHR I M.P. PANDEY AND SH. LAXMIKANTFOR EXAMINATION BY THE AO. IT IS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED TO REJECT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF RS.95,000/ - FROM THESE PERSONS. FURTHER, NO SUCH STATEMENT WAS GIVEN BY TH ESE THREE PERSONS WHEN THEY RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SEARCH. THE TOTAL CASH CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE ABOV E PERSONS IS RS.95,000/-, LEAVING A BALANCE OF RS.5,62,000-95,00 0=4,67,000. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, AS PER THE CFS, CASH IN HAND OF RS.3,19,125 WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM AS ON 23.07.2009 . THUS, THERE STILL REMAINS AN UNEXPLAINED DIFFERENCE OF RS .1,47,875/-, (RS.4,67,000/- RS.3,19,125/-) AND THE EXPLANATION T HAT THE CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS OUT OF CASH WITHDRA WAL OF RS.7,00,000/- FROM SBI MADE ON 30.04.2009 NEARLY 3 MONTHS AGO IS NOT PLAUSIBLE. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE TOT ALITY OF FACTS AS MENTIONED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT GIVEN A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OF THE CASH FOUND AT THE T IME OF SEARCH. KAMLA KANT SHARMA 4 THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED TO TREAT THE SAME AS UNEXPLAI NED CASH OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADD IT TO THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE A.Y . 2010-11. 8. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY MATERIAL, REBUTTING THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO DISTURB THE FINDING OF FACTS OF LD. CIT(A ). GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEEIS DISMIS SED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.01.2 018. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER INDORE; DATED : 10/ 01/2018 PATEL, P.S/. . . COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUA RD FILE. BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY/DDO, INDORE