Hasan Masud, Gorakhpur V. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Gorakhpur

ITA 121/VNS/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9004 (ITAT-VARANASI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH ‘SMC’ VARANASI [Through Virtual Hearing] BEFORE SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.121/Vns/2019 Assessment Year 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur Vs. Hasan Masud, 6, Kaisa Road, Gorakhpur 273001 PAN –ACJPM3196J (Respondent) (Appellant) Shri Subhash Chand, Advocate Appellant by Shri Harish Gidwani, DR Respondent by 07/02/2022 Date of hearing 11/02/2022 Date of pronouncement O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gorakhpur dated 25.03.2019. The sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is reproduced below: “Because the authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in treating the deposit of Rs.4,00,000 in the bank account as unexplained.” 2. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that assessee had deposited certain amount in his bank account and the Assessing Officer u/s. 148 added back the same as unexplained deposits in the bank, whereas the 2 ITA No.121/Vns/2019 fact is that assessee had deposited the amount out of sale proceeds of his agricultural land and in this respect my attention was invited to paper book pgs. 7 to 12, where copy of sale deed was placed. My attention was also invited to PB. pg. 6 where a copy of Ikrarnama dated 19.01.2016 regarding receipt of Rs.6.00 lacs on 12.2.2009 was placed. It was submitted that the authorities below has rejected the evidence filed by the assessee by holding that the assessee had received the amount of advance seven years before the date of registry which is not correct as there is mention of receipt of sales consideration in cash as well as cheques from time to time. Therefore it was prayed that the addition sustained by ld. CIT(A) may be deleted. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, invited my attention to the copy of Ikrarnama regarding receipt of Rs.6.00 lacs and submitted that Ikrarnama dated 19.01.2016 has been obtained after a period of seven years from the date of sale deed which is not possible and moreover there is a significant difference between the signature as put on the Ikrarnama and in the sale deed. It was submitted that in the sale deed there is signature of Umesh Yadav whereas in the Ikrarnama there is mention and signatures of Rajdhari Yadav and therefore the Ikrarnama filed by the assessee cannot be relied and hence the appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the rival parties and have perused the material placed on record. I find that the Ikrarnama dated 19.1.2016 has been signed by Rajdhari Yadav and the name mentioned on Ikrarnama also states the name to be Rajdhari Yadav son of Shiv Dhar Yadav, whereas the name mentioned on the sale deed is that of Umesh Yadav son of Shri MuneshwarYadav and moreover there is significant difference between the signatures as put on the sale deed and on the Ikrarnama. Therefore, this 3 ITA No.121/Vns/2019 document which has been obtained after seven years from the date of actual receipt of advance money cannot be relied and hence it is rejected. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 11/02/2022 in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the I.T.A.T. Rules.) Sd/- (T.S. Kapoor) Accountant Member Aks – Dtd. 11/02/2022 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File