Sh. Rajan Dhir, Parwanoo V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1151/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8500 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 234B; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1147 TO 1151/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 TO 2006-07) SH.RAJAN DHIR, VS. THE A.C.I.T., # 52, SECTOR 4, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PARWANOO. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ACVPD4864C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.02.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS BUNCH OF FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)(CENTRAL), GURG AON RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006-07. 2. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AN D ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE DECISION GIVEN IN ITA 2 NO.1147/CHD/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO ALL THE APPEALS. ITA NO.1147/CHD/2012 : 3. THE GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.2,07,396/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUN T. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SAME GROUND IN ITA NO.1150/CHD/2012 AND ITA NO.1151/CHD/2012 BEING GROUND NO.1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-0 7 RESPECTIVELY. 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT WERE OUT OF PAST SAVINGS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A QUALIFIED ENGINEER HAD WORKED WITH M/S PUROLATOR INDIA LIMITE D FOR SIX YEARS AND STARTED HIS OWN PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM I N THE YEAR 1991 WHICH WAS LATER CONVERTED INTO A COMPANY. HE HAD ACCUMULATED CASH SPREAD OVER SIXTEEN ODD YEARS. THE RECORDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE AS BEING AN INDIVIDUAL AS SESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO KEEP THE RECORD AND CASH FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS SURRENDERED TO BUY PEACE O F MIND. 5. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), SAME SUBMISSIONS WERE REITERATED. A NEW CASH ACCOUNT PREPARED WAS SUBMITTED AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE, REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING O FFICER 3 AND FURTHER REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE CONCERNED BANK STATEMEN T WAS REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 133(6). FROM THE PERUS AL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA, IT WAS NOTICE D THAT THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED ON 27.2.2002 AND THEREAFTER IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED. SINCE THE SURREND ER MADE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE AND SON OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUN T IN THE IMPUGNED ACCOUNT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EXPLAINED AND HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITE RATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ), WE OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER IN THIS REGARD AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND THE CLAIM OF SURRENDE R IS ALSO NOT CORRECT AS THE SURRENDER WAS MADE ON ACCOU NT OF BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF WIFE AND SON OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ACCOUNT WAS REQUISITIONED BY THE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE DEPOSITS REMAIN UNEXPLAINED. 9. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.1147, 1150 & 1151/CHD/2012 IS DISMISSED. 10. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1147/CHD/2012 RELATES TO PURCHASE OF HOUSE NO.HI G 52, SECTOR 4, PARWANOO AT RS.5,46,213/-. THE LEARN ED CIT (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT B EEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THIS RE GARD. 11. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REI TERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. IN THIS REGARD, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEA LS) READ AS UNDER : 6.1 HAVING GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATE D 24.01.2002 WAS FOR RS. 5,46,213/- INCLUDING STAMP D UTY OF RS. 58,600/-, THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS STATED TO BE FROM PERSONAL SAVINGS. NO OTHER DETAIL, INTER-ALIA EV IDENCE 5 NOR MANNER/MODE OF PAYMENT HAD BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO NOR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE CASH AC COUNT FOR FY 2001-02 SUBMITTED SHOW OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 13,50,000/- AS ON 01.04.2001 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED. THE KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME AS PER THE ASSESSEE'S RETURN OF INCOME IS ONLY SALARY. HENCE AFT ER CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, I AM INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION BY THE LD. AO. ASSESSEE FAILS IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 14. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD, AS WE OBSERVE THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME HAL F HEARTEDLY. THE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT (APPEALS), HOWEVER, NOT BACKED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 15. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO LIC PREMIUM OF RS.53,329/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SAME GROUND IN I TA NO.1148, 1149 & 1150/CHD/2012 BEING GROUND NOS.1, 1 AND 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 200 5- 06 RESPECTIVELY. THE STANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ALL A LONG BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS THAT IT HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OUT OF P AST SAVINGS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DISMIS SED THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE. 6 16. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REI TERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 17. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. IN THIS REGARD, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEA LS) READ AS UNDER : 7.1 IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD. AO THAT THE ASSESSE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT AND THAT THE ENTRIE S IN BANK ACCOUNT DID NOT RECORD SUCH DEBIT. ON THE OTHER HAN D THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS FROM TH E PAST SAVINGS. NO DOUBT CASH ACCOUNT COPY HAS BEEN FURNISH ED BUT THE SAME IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E OTHER THAN THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER WHA T IS GERMANE TO THE ISSUE IS THAT THE DATE, SOURCE AND MO DE OF PAYMENT HAVE NOT BEEN CLARIFIED. HENCE THE ADDITION MADE IS CONFIRMED. 19. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS O F THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PAYMENT OF LIC PREMIUM WAS MADE OUT O F PAST SAVINGS IS NOT BACKED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND EVEN BEFORE US, NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED. 7 20. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1147/CHD/2012 IS DISMISSED. THE GROUND NO.1, 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1148/CHD/2012, I TA NO.1149/CHD/2012 AND ITA NO.1150/CHD/2012 RESPECTIVELY ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 21. GROUND NO.5 IN ITA NO.1147/CHD/2012, GROUND NO.3 IN ITA NO.1148/CHD/2012, GROUND NO.3 IN ITA NO.1149/2012, GROUND NO.4 IN ITA NO.1150/CHD AND GROUND NO.3 IN ITA NO.1151/CHD/2012 RELATE TO INTER EST UNDER SECTIONS 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND NEED TO FURTHER ADJUDIC ATION. 22. ALL OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL APPEALS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 23. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 8