SHRI KASHMIR SINGH S/O SHRI PURAN SINGH, AMRITSAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-5(3), AMRITSAR

ITA 174/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7522 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 174/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Kashmir Singh S/o. Sh. Puran Singh H. No. 143, Vill. Rampur, P.O. Jheeta Kalan, Distt. Amritsar [PAN: DLBPS 9542G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Amritsar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 14.07.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M.: The instant appeal is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Amritsar, {in brevity CIT(A)} bearing appeal No.10395/2017-18 dated of order 27.12.2018, order passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity of the Act) for the Assessment year 2009-10. The impugned order was originated from the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Amritsar (in brevity A.O) order passed u/s.144 of the Act order dated 23.12.2016. ITA N. 174/Asr/2019 Kashmir Singh v. ITO 2. Tersely we advert the fact of the case. Reopening was made by the Assessing Authority for depositing the cash in bank account in different dates. The total amount to Rs.71,61,000/- in Saving Bank no. SF/4686 maintained in Punjab Gramin Bank, Amritsar, in this financial year. The assessee offered explanation and ld. AO after considering the same added back Rs.16,27,000/- as unexplained cash deposit with the bank interest income Rs.34,100/-. The total addition was made amount to Rs.16,61,100. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) modified the order of ld. AO and reduce the addition of cash deposit amount to Rs.5,70,000/-. And also bank interest at Rs.34,100 was upheld. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. During the appeal proceedings before us the ld. Counsel of the assessee filed Paper Book on dated 18.02.2020. In the paper book copy of Mortgaged agreement and its English translation is attached in page 1 to 9. The ld CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in the following manner. In the page 4, order of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted as follows: “The other cash deposit are of Rs.22,30,000/- and Rs.1,40,000/- made on 01.12.2008 and 03.12.2008 respectively totaling Rs.23,70,000/-. As against these, the assesse had cash of Rs.13,00,000/- from the sale of agricultural land on 01.12.2008. The explanation of the appellant is that the balance cash was deposited out of past savings, sale of milk and of agriculture produce and amount realized on release of agricultural land lying mortgaged with the assesse. In support the assesse filed copy of mortgaged deed dated 07.02.2006 with one Gajjan Singh S/O. Sh. Gurbakhs Singh R/O. village Jheetan Kalan showing land mortgaged with the appellant for Rs.8,00,000/-. As mentioned at the back page of the mortgaged deed, Rs.4,00,000/- was receied bank from Gajjan Singh on 30.09.2008. During appeal the ld. AR has submitted that the appellant had a land holding of about 7 lo;;as out of which about 4 killas was sold during the year the year. Keeping in view size of the land holding, it ITA N. 174/Asr/2019 Kashmir Singh v. ITO would be reasonable if credit is given for Rs.1,00,000/- for cash in hand from sale of agricultural produce, milk and past savings, etc. Out of the cash deposit of Rs.23,70,000/-, the source of cash deposits of Rs.13,00,000/- +4,00,000 + 1,00,000= Rs.18,00,000/- is held to be explained. The addition of Rs.5,70,000/- is upheld. The bank interest of Rs.34,100 has been rightly brought to tax. The addition is upheld Grounds of appeal 5 & 6 are partly allowed .” 4. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We considered the rival submission and documents available in the record. The ld. CIT(A) properly adjudicated the issue with speaking order. The ld. CIT(A) disallowed the amount of received in mortgaged of the property amount to Rs., 400,000/- out of total transaction amount to Rs 8lacwith Mr. Gajjan Singh S/O. Gurbakash Singh village Jheetan Kalan. The particular document is attached with the Paper book of the assessee for further consideration. Considering the gravity of the document, we are setting aside the addition of Rs.4 lac (8,00,000 -4,00,000) related to agreement regarding mortgage deed to ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication. The assessee is directed to submit the relevant documents in favour of his claim. Related to bank interest amount to Rs.34,100 is confirmed and the addition is sustained. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.07.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member ITA N. 174/Asr/2019 Kashmir Singh v. ITO *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order