Smt. Kiran Dhir, Parwanoo V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 139/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9188 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 69C; 132

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MAHARISHTI PRASHAT KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 137 & 138/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 & 2006-07 SMT. JYOTI DHIR, VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PARWANOO. CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ACVDP4863F & ITA NO. 139/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 SMT. KIRAN DHIR, VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PARWANOO. CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AFYPD0246E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. SUSHIL KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 04.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.08.2016 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES BUT INVOLVING IDENTICAL ISSUES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 2. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS R EGARDING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO RE GARDING THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASING HOUSE AT PARWANOO. 3. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN IN THIS RESPECT, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION. IT WAS NOTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF SOME UNDISCLOSED SOURCE O F INCOME AND FURTHER ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE SAID INCOME EITHER D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SECTION U/S 132 OR IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 143A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THUS, MADE THE ADDITIONS IN RES PECT OF BANK DEPOSITS WHICH IS RS. 10 LAKHS IN THE CASE OF SMT. JYOTI DHIR FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND RS. 5,70,046/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND RS. 85,6 61/- IN THE CASE OF SMT. KIRAN DHIR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEES AGAIN COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. HE, THEREFORE, C ONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT TH E DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE EARLIER WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE S FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. THESE SUBMISSIONS ARE FOUND GENERAL IN NATURE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT ARE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 3 4. THE SECOND ISSUE IS RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,90,000/- IN THE CASE OF SMT. JYOTI DHIR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AN D RS. 10,64,000/- IN THE CASE OF SMT. KIRAN DHIR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF HOUSE AT SECTOR 4, PARWANOO. IN THE CASE OF SMT. JYOTI DHIR, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED HOUSE NO. HIG-51 SITUATE D AT SECTOR 4, PARWANOO FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6 LAKHS PLUS STAMP DUTY OF RS. 90,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE HOUSE WAS PURCHASED FROM AVAILABLE CASH FUND AS PER THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN THIS RESPECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, TRE ATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 5. NO EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION U/S 69C OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, THOUGH VEH EMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS WAS OUT OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WI TH THE ASSESSEE BUT HE COULD NOT BRING BEFORE US ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE IN THIS R ESPECT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN TH IS RESPECT. 7. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SMT. KIRAN DHIR, IT W AS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A HOUSE FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9,50 ,000/-. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO EXPENDED RS. 1,14,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY. THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS THUS CALCULATED AT RS. 10,64,000/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS REGARDING SO URCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 4 8. THE LD. COUNSEL BEFORE US ALSO COULD NOT CONVINC E US ABOUT THE GENUINE SOURCE OF INCOME IN THE ABOVE SAID INVESTMENT. WE , THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS RESPEC T. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS W ITHOUT BEING ANY MERIT, ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.08.2016. SD/- SD/- (MAHARISHI PRASHANT KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12 TH AUGUST, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR