Mrs. Jyoti Dhir, Parwanoo V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1030/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8744 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Gift; Document seized; Question of law; Agreed addition; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 5(2); 153A; 133(6); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1030/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SMT. JYOTI DHIR, V THE DCIT, # 52, SECTOR 4, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, PARWANOO. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ACVPD4863F & ITA NO. 1031/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 SHRI MUKESH DHIR, V THE DCIT, # 52, SECTOR 4, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, PARWANOO. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AEKPD6163K & ITA NO. 1032/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S MODULUS SPRINGS PVT.LTD., V THE DCIT, KASAULI ROAD, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, SECTOR 4, CHANDIGARH. PARWANOO. PAN: AACCM8150A & ITA NOS. 1035 TO 1037/CHD/2014 A.YS: 2003-04,2004-05 & 2006-07 SMT. KIRAN DHIR, V THE DCIT, # 52, SECTOR 4, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, PARWANOO. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AFYPD0246E & ITA NOS. 1033 & 1034/CHD/2014 A.YS: 2007-08 & 2008-09 SMT. KIRAN DHIR, V THE DCIT, # 52, SECTOR 4, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, PARWANOO. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AFYPD0246E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SING H RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL 2 DATE OF HEARING : 09.02.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.02.2015 O R D E R PER BENCH THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS F ILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE APPEALS ARE DECIDED AS UNDER. ITA 1030/CHD/2014 : SMT. JYOTI DHIR [ 271(1)(C) ] 3. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAON DATED 12.09.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, CHALLENGING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WA S COMPLETED AT RS. 2,10,000/- ON 18.12.2009 AGAINST THE RETURNE D INCOME DECLARED BY ASSESSEE OF A SUM OF RS. 60,000/-. PEN ALTY WAS LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE AD DITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT A PPEARING IN SB ACCOUNT NO. 6677 WITH BANK OF BARODA, PARWANOO. THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE DEPAR TMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR INFORMATION FROM T HE BANK OF BARODA, PARWANOO UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT AN D COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND 3 EXPLANATION WAS CALLED FOR WHY THIS BANK ACCOUNT WA S NOT EXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT ADDITION MAY BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,50,000/- DEPOSITED ON 27.03.2002 BECAUSE NO EVIDE NCE IS AVAILABLE. PENALTY WAS LEVIED ACCORDINGLY. THE AS SESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NEITHER FILING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS NOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WARRANTING LEVY OF THE PE NALTY. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED AND 10 0% PENALTY WAS LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITH EXPLANATION 5A. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE MADE SURRENDER OF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION DEPOSITED WITH BANK OF BAROD A, PARWANOO WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT CASH DEPOSIT CAME TO THE LIGHT FROM EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IF NO INFORM ATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR FROM THE BANK, THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE BY ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE SEEN T HE LIGHT OF THE DAY. IT WAS, THEREFORE, FOUND TO BE A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND PENALTY WAS CONFIRMED. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW PENALTY HAS BEEN RIGHTLY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS INITIATED ON DHIR GROUP OF CASES ON 10. 08.2007 INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCL OSE THE BANK ACCOUNT IN QUESTION TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. WHE N INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR UNDER SECTION 133(6) FRO M BANK OF BARODA, PARWANOO, IT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1,50 ,000/- IN 4 THIS ACCOUNT WHICH WAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED AND ADDIT ION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS NEVER DISCLOSED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF P RESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME FROM THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-B (THIRD MEMBER) IN THE CASE OF ACI T VS KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL 121 ITD159 (AHD) (THIRD MEMBER) HEL D AS UNDER : SECTION 271(L)(C), READ WITH SECTION 153A, OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - PENALTY - FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME - ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-03 - ASSESSEES WERE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT AND WERE MEMBERS OF A GROUP - THEY WERE SUBJECTED TO SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 AFTER FI LING OF ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME - CERTAIN INCRIMINATI NG DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING COURSE OF SAID SEARCH AND THEREAFTER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEES - IN RESPONSE TO SAID NOTICE THEY AGAI N FILED RETURNS OF INCOME DECLARING ADDITIONAL INCOME OVER AND ABOVE INCOME WHICH WAS RETURNED IN THEIR ORIGINAL RETURNS - ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED RETUR NS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENT - THEREAFTER, HE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND LEV IED CERTAIN PENALTY ON GROUND THAT NEITHER TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO CONCEALED INCOME WERE RECORDED IN ROOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR DISCLOSURE WAS VOLUNTARY - ASSESSEES' CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF EXPLANATION 5(2) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS REJECTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER - WHETHER SINCE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED IN RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UND ER SECTION 153A DID NOT FALL UNDER CATEGORY OF RETURN MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION 5(2) TO SECTION 271(1)(C), ASSESSEES WERE NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM PENALT Y - HELD, YES . 6. HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PREMPAL GANDHI V CIT 335 ITD 23 HELD AS UNDER : HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE PLAUSIBILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A PURE QUESTION OF FACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND 5 WHEN NOTICE OF RE-ASSESSMENT WAS ISSUED, FINDING NO OTHER WAY OUT, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED INCOME, TO A VOID PENAL CONSEQUENCES. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT CO ULD NOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO BUY PEACE O F MIND AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF CONCEALMENT WHICH CALLED FOR PENALTY. THIS WAS NOT A CASE WHERE PENAL TY HAD BEEN IMPOSED ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED HIGHER INCOME VOLUNTARILY BUT A CASE OF C LEAR CONCEALMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAVING FOUND NO OTHE R WAY OUT WAS FORCED TO SURRENDER THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE. 7. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAC DATA PVT. LTD. 358 ITR 593 HELD THAT THE CONCEPT OF WARRANTY SURRENDER IS NO MORE APPLICABLE AND PENALT Y HAS TO BE LEVIED. 8. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF T HE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DETAILS OF THIS BAN K ACCOUNT IN QUESTION WAS DETECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT T HE ASSESSMENT STAGE ON CALLING THE INFORMATION FROM TH E BANK OF BARODA. THEREFORE, THE DEPOSIT IN BANK OF BARODA W AS NEVER DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THE TIME FOR FILING THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) HAS ALSO EXPIRED AND AS SESSEE NEVER DISCLOSED THE SAME BANK ENTRIES TO THE REVENUE DEPA RTMENT. THEREFORE, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INC OME AND AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY LEVIED THE PENALTY U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND IS ACCO RDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA 1031/CHD/2014 : SHRI MUKESH DHIR [ 271(1)(C) ] 6 10. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAON DATED 12.09.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. IN THE CASE OF ALSO ASSESSEE CHALLEN GED THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 11. IN THE CASE OF ALSO, SEARCH WAS INITIATED UNDER SEC TION 132 OF THE ACT ON 10.08.2007 IN DHIR GROUP OF CASES INC LUDING THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A READ W ITH SECTION 143(3) WAS COMPLETED AT RS. 3,66,900/- ON 18.12.200 9 AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 66,570/-. PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LE VIED ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK IN THE NAME OF MINOR SON OF THE ASSESSEE RS. 57,934/- AND RS. 2,02,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT TO T HE WIFE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT ONE OF THE ADDITION IS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT APPEARING IN SAVING BAN K ACCOUNT NO. 6991 WITH BANK OF BARODA, PARWANOO OF RS. 57,93 4/-. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE BANK D EPOSIT, THEREFORE, SURRENDERED AMOUNT IN QUESTION. THE OTH ER ADDITION IS ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT TO THE WIFE OF ASSESSEE OF RS . 2,02,400/- WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF HIS DECLA RATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN THE RETUR N UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 12. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSIT IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER 6991 WIT H BANK OF BARODA IN THE NAME OF MINOR SON OF ASSESSEE WHICH W AS ALSO SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. THE 7 AMOUNT OF GIFT WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILE D ORIGINALLY UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT AND THERE WAS ALSO NO GIFT DEED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OF FICER WOULD NOT HAVE CARRIED OUT INVESTIGATION, BOTH ADDITIONS WOULD NOT HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF THE DAY. IT IS, THEREFORE, FOUND TO BE CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENT ION THAT SAME WERE VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND PENALTY WAS CONFIR MED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS). 13. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SMT. JYOTI DHIR (SUPRA). THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECIS ION IN THAT CASE AND THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON THEREIN, WE DISMI SS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA 1032/CHD/2014 M/S MODULUS SPRINGS P.LTD. [271(1)(C) ] 15. THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAON DATED 12.09.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF ALSO, ASSESSME NT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AT RS. 8,64,160/- ON 18.12.2009 AGAI NST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 5,91,984/-. THE PENALTY WAS LE VIED ON ADDITION OF RS. 4,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT IN THE LAND. IT IS ALSO CONNECTED WITH DHIR GROUP OF SEARCH CASES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FOUND THAT AS SESSEE HAS 8 MADE INVESTMENT IN LAND IN A SUM OF RS.4,50,000/- W HICH WAS DECLARED SUO-MOTU IN THE RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT AN Y INVESTMENT IN LAND WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME F ILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAD TO SURRENDER ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ON THIS SURRENDER IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A, IT WAS FOUND THAT A SSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE INVESTMENT IN LAND IN ORIGINAL RE TURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INC OME. IT IS STATED BY LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES T HAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SMT. JYOTI DHI R (SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION AND THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON IN THAT CASE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA 1035, 1036 & 1037/CHD/2014 SMT. KIRAN DHIR (271(1)(C) 17. THESE APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAON D ATED 12.09.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2006-07 CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. 9 18. IN THIS CASE ALSO, ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 153A R EAD WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WERE FRAMED ON 18.12 .2009 AT RS. 3,13,000/-, RS. 2,50,000/- AND RS. 3,83,800/- RESPE CTIVELY IN ALL THE ABOVE YEARS. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM HER PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN M/S HIMALAYA PACKAGING AND ENGINEERING SERVICES. THIS CASE IS ALSO CONNECTED WITH SEARCH IN THE CASE OF DHIR GROUP OF CASES. THE ADDITION IN A LL THE THREE YEARS EMANATES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOS ITS APPEARING IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 6945 WITH BANK OF BARODA, PARWANOO I.E. RS.2,13,000/-, RS. 1,50,499/- AND RS. 2,45,000/- RESPECTIVELY IN ALL THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE BANK DEPOSITS IN THE ABOVE SUM OF RUPEES CLAIMING THE ENTRIES TO BE VERY OLD IN WH ICH NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE SU RRENDERED THESE AMOUNTS AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING INACC URATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWE VER, LEVIED THE PENALTY. 19. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) IN WHICH THE ABOVE SUM HAVE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED. THE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA WAS SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN T HE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) AS WELL AS SA ME WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, FOUND THAT THESE BANK DEPOSITS CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN REQUISIT ION UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE CONCERN ED BANK AND 10 IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD NOT HAVE EXERCI SED THE POWERS UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE ADDITIO N WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO THE LIGHT OF THE DAY. IT WAS, THEREFO RE, A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND PENALTY WAS ACCORDINGLY, IMPOSED. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITT ED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE CASE O F SMT. JYOTI DHIR (SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION I N THAT CASE AND THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON THEREON, WE DISMISS ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISM ISSED. ITA 1033 & 1034/CHD/2014 (SMT.KIRAN DHIR) A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 21. BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST DIFFERENT YEARS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAO N DATED 12.09.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 12.09.20 14 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, ASSE SSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,95,869/- AND RS. 4 ,26,896/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF BARODA, PARWANOO. 22. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE , SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON DHIR GROUP OF CA SES ON 10.08.2007 INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF IN COME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,95,867/- A ND RS. 4,26,896/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ADDITIONS OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS HAVE 11 BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS A PPEARING IN BANK ACCOUNT NUMBERS 6945 WITH BANK OF BARODA, PARW ANOO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE INFORMATION FR OM THE BANK WHICH WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE E XPLAINED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THESE BANK ACCOUNTS W ERE EXPLAINABLE, HOWEVER ENTRIES ARE OLD AND NO DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE THEREFORE, ASSESSEE DECIDED T O SURRENDER THE AMOUNT FOR ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACC ORDINGLY, MADE THE ADDITION ON BEING THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 23. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 24. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE O F THE VIEW ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY MADE BY THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW OF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER C ALLED FOR INFORMATION FROM THE CONCERNED BANK AND IT WAS FOUN D THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA, PARWANOO. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAI N THE BANK DEPOSITS IN QUESTION AND THEREFORE, SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT FOR TAXATION. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT BOTH THE AD DITIONS WERE AGREED TO BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDITION. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT N O APPEAL LIES ON AGREED ADDITIONS. WE RELY UPON FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F JIVATLAL PURTAPSHI, 65 ITR 261 (BOM.) 2. DECISION OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. VAMADEVAN BHANU 330 ITR 559 (KER) 12 3. DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BANTA SINGH KARTAR SINGH VS. CIT, 125 I TR 239(P&H) 25. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE BA NK DEPOSITS, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND CONF IRMING THE ADDITION. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 26. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 27. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH FEBRUARY,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11 TH FEBRUARY,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH