SH. Balwinder Singh, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 134/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4555 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A N MISHRA
• Keywords: Salary income; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 134/(ASR)/2017 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 BALWINDER SINGH, E.O. 45-46, INSIDE SAIDAN GATE, JALANDHAR [PAN: ALNPS 7661K] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD III(1), JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SURINDER MAHAJAN ( C.A.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. A. N. MISHRA (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 17.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.05.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, AGITATING THE OR DER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, JALANDHAR ('CIT(A)' FOR SHORT) DATED 06.01.2017, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING HIS ASS ESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) DATED 30.12.2 010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE, A SALARIED PERSON, FILED HIS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR ON 01.09.2008, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,55, 940/-. THE SAME WAS SELECTED FOR BEING SUBJECT TO THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURE UND ER THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AT RS.11.62 LACS, THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF WHICH HE WA S THEREFORE ASKED TO EXPLAIN IN ITA NO. 134/ASR/2017 (AY 2008-09) BALWINDER SINGH V. ITO 2 THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THOUGH, ONE, MR. PARVEE N JULKA, ACCOUNTANT, APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) DATED 08.09.2010, NO EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A O) ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 BY TREATING THE SAID CASH DEPOS ITS AS THE ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED INCOME. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED A CASH FLOW S TATEMENT IN SUBSTANTIATION OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAID BANK ACCOUNT. HIS LEGAL O BJECTION TO THE NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) (ISSUED ON 04.09.2009), AS WELL AS THE NON-APPEARANCE ON 30.09.2009 (STATING MR. JULKA TO BE AN UNKNOWN PERS ON, MUCH LESS AUTHORIZED BY HIM), THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING THEREBY, WAS MET B Y THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND REPORT BY THE AO WHICH FINDS REPRODUCT ION IN HIS ORDER, BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORD (REFER PARAS 4.3 TO 4.6 OF THE IM PUGNED ORDER). ON THE MERITS OF THE QUANTUM ADDITION, THE ASSESSEES CASH FLOW STAT EMENT WAS AGAIN FOUND BY HIM AS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMED; THE OPERATING PART OF HIS ADJUDICATION READING AS UNDER: 5.5 THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION BUT N O COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED IN THE REMAND REPORT ON THE SAME. THEREFORE, I PROCEED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCES OF FUNDS FROM THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT. AFTER CAREFULLY, EXAMINING THE SAME, I FIND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT T O SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCES OF CASH IN HAND ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. T HE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT SALARY DRAWN BY THE APPELLANT IS ONLY RS.2,16,138 AND OUT OF THE SA ME CASH WITHDRAWN IS RS.1,77,384 IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT BOUTIQUE INCOME OF RS.1.35 LACS HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE WIFE BUT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED HAS BEEN FILED. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ITR FILED BY THE WIF E OR TO SUBSTANTIATE THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY HER COULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD. THER E IS NO REASON OR RHYME TO SUPPORT THE EVIDENCE OF OPENING CASH IN HAND GIVING THE LEVEL O F SALARY INCOME OF THE APPELLANT OR SOURCES OF INCOME OF THE WIFE. 5.6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I HOLD THAT APPE LLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SOURCES OF CASH DE POSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, I CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF R S.11,62,331 MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. ITA NO. 134/ASR/2017 (AY 2008-09) BALWINDER SINGH V. ITO 3 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. MAHAJAN, DU RING HEARING OPTED NOT TO PRESS THE LEGAL GROUNDS, RAISED PER GROUNDS 1 TO 3, MAKING AN ENDORSEMENT TO THAT EFFECT ON THE APPEAL FILE. THE SAME ARE ACCORD INGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. QUA THE QUANTUM ADDITION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOUND THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, ADVANCED IN THE FORM OF A CASH FLOW ST ATEMENT (AT PB PGS. 25-29), AS NOT SATISFACTORY ON THE GROUND OF THE OPENING CASH BALANCE (AS ON 01.04.2007), AT RS.5.10 LACS, AND THE CASH INTRODUCED (RS.3.50 LACS), STATED TO BE R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS WIFE (ON 31.10.2007 & 10.02.2008 AT RS.1.75 LACS EACH). THERE WAS, HE HELD, GIVEN THE ASSESSEES INCOME PROFILE, NO BASIS FOR SUCH A HUGE CASH BALANCE AS AT 01.04.2007, AND NEITHER ANYTHING ON R ECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEES WIFE. AN EXAMINATION OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, HOWEVER, SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE SAME FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, I.E., FROM 01.04.2005 TO 31.03.2008, BEGINNING WITH A CAS H BALANCE OF RS.10,000/- A NOMINAL AMOUNT, AS ON 01.04.2005. NO ERROR IN THE S AID STATEMENT, WHICH WAS ACCOMPANIED BY THE BANK STATEMENT (PB PGS. 9-24) HA S BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE. EVEN NO QUERY WITH REGARD TO THE REASON FO R THE CASH BUILD-UP, WHICH IS NO DOUBT UNUSUAL, AND CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF THE C ASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, HAS BEEN MADE. HOW THEREFORE WE WONDE R COULD SAME BE ASSAILED? THE ONLY OBJECTION THAT THEREFORE SURVIVES IS WITH REGARD TO THE CASH STATED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS WIFE, I.E., RS.3. 50 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MEET THE REVENUES OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD. NO IMP ROVEMENT IN HIS CASE STANDS MADE BEFORE US. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, IN ENTIRETY, WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR TO RS. 3 LACS . WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 134/ASR/2017 (AY 2008-09) BALWINDER SINGH V. ITO 4 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MAY 24, 2018 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 24.05.2018 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: BALWINDER SINGH, E.O. 45-46, INSIDE SAIDAN GATE, JALANDHAR (2) THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD II I(1), JALANDHAR (3) THE CIT(APPEALS)-2, JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T TRUE COPY BY ORDER