Pandit Gangadhar Kawale, Nanded V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1088/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9247 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Source of fund; Revised return
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO. 1088 /P U N/201 6 / ASSES SMENT YEAR : 20 0 9 - 1 0 PANDIT GANGADHAR KAWALE, HOUSE NO.40, ANAND NAGAR, NEAR JEEJAMATA KANYA SCHOOL, NANDED 431605 . / APPELLANT PAN: A VLPK1461F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(2), NANDED . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI MUKESH JHA / DATE OF HEARING : 14 . 0 2 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 . 0 2 .201 8 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - I , AURANGABAD , DATED 0 8 . 0 3 .20 1 6 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 1 0 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 4 3(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO. 1088 /P U N/20 1 6 PANDIT GANGADHAR KAWALE 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW: GROUND NO 1: THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,42,312 MADE BY THE AO OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY SOURCE FROM WH ICH THE APPELLANT HAS INTRODUCED THIS AMOUNT IN HIS BUSINESS. GROUND NO 2: THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.62,132 OF THE APPELLANTS AGRICULTURAL INCOME MADE BY THE AO FOR INABILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH SALE PATTIES CO RRESPONDING TO SUCH INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOURS TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED INCOME MADE BY THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 3. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON DIFFERENT DATES STARTING FROM 26.10.2016 AND NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. ON THE LAST TWO DATES OF HEARING, THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND NOTED THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING. FOR THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING, NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. SO, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED EX PARTE THE ASSESSEE BUT AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. 4. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF 10,42,312/ - AND THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF 62,132/ - OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACT S OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 1,72,027/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 2,70,320/ - . ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1088 /P U N/20 1 6 PANDIT GANGADHAR KAWALE 3 THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY DIFFERENT COUNSELS, WHO FILED INFORMATION IN PARTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WAS HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURES SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009 FILED BY LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI B.G. RAJE IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON 11.12.2012 AND IN THE NEW BALANCE SHEET FURNISHED BY SECOND LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI R.G. BAHETI. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN THE LAND PURCHASED ALONG WITH TWO OTHER PERSONS AT TARODA, NANDED CITY FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF 30 LAKHS IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS WORKED OUT AT 11,42,360/ - . THERE WERE OTHER DIFFERENCES I.E. LOANS AND ADVANCES AND CASH IN HAND SHOWN. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. HOWEVER, NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THE DIFFERENCES IN FIGURES SHOWN IN TWO BALANCE SHEETS AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT ON TOTAL SALES SHOWN AT 22,34,269/ - BY APPLYING PROFIT RATE OF 15% AND ADDED SUM OF 3,35,140/ - AFTER DEDUCTION OF PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 1,90,317/ - , 1,44,823/ - WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS TAKEN FROM PERSONS AGAINST WHICH ADDRESSES WERE N OT FURNISHED TOTALING 23,72,800/ - . ANOTHER ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE CIT(A) DELETED GP ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS OF 23,72,800/ - , THE ASSESSEE EXP LAINED THAT 12,50,500/ - WAS INTRODUCED OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND LOANS FROM RELATIVES. FURTHER, BALANCE SUM OF 11,48,860/ - WAS INVESTED OUT OF FUNDS OF HUF OF HIS FATHER / GRANDFATHER ON 29.05.2008. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS EVID ENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, FIRST HELD THAT INVESTMENT OF 11,42,360/ - WAS MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ITA NO. 1088 /P U N/20 1 6 PANDIT GANGADHAR KAWALE 4 CAPACITY OF KARTA OF HUF. THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT WAS PROVED WHERE BOTH THE PARTIES HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD GIVEN CASH TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF BALANCE INCOME , DIFFERENCE WAS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE SIZE OF LANDHOLDING HELD THAT ONLY SUM OF 2,08,188/ - WAS AVAILABLE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF FAMILY AND HIMSELF, WHEREAS HE HAD INTRODUCED SUM OF 12,50,500/ - IN HIS BUSINESS AS PER BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009. THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10,42,312/ - WAS THUS, CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 7. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 81,096/ - , THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE SALE PATTIES IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 2,70,320/ - DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD FURNISH ONLY SALE PATTIES FOR 2,08,188/ - DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE MATTER WAS R EMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE VIS - - VIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 81,096/ - WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALMOST CORRESPONDING TO INABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH SALE PATTIES. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER, RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 62,132/ - . A GAINST BOTH THE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 8. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE THOUGH CLAIMS THAT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS IS OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE ON THE BASIS OF CONCRETE EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME BEING AVAILABLE TO IT AND IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW , WHEREIN HIS ITA NO. 1088 /P U N/20 1 6 PANDIT GANGADHAR KAWALE 5 LANDHOLDING WAS FOUND TO BE NOT ENOUGH TO GENERATE SUCH INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FRESH EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10,42,312/ - IS UPHELD. 9. THE SECOND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ALSO LINKED ONE , WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH SALE PATTIES TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF EARNING THE REQUISITE AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME . I N THE ABSENCE OF SAME, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 1 0 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 201 8 . SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 28 TH FEBRUARY , 201 8 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - I , AURANGABAD ; 4. THE PR. CIT - 1 , AURANGABAD ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE