Sri. Sunil Bhatia, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2216/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0889 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIBHA SHRI GANESH
• Keywords: Source of fund; Additional evidence
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT IT A NO. 2216/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 SHRI SUNIL BHATIA, NO.4406/7/8, HIGH POINT 4, 45, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. P AN: ABYPB 7477R VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3)(1) NOW 1(2)(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SMT. PRATIBHA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GANESH R. GHALE, STANDING COUNSEL FOR DEPT. DATE OF HEARING : 12 .12 .2019 DATE OF PRO NOUNCEMENT : 20 .1 2 .2019 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 6.8.2019 OF CIT(APPEALS)-1, BENGALURU, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HIS SOURCE OF IN COME IS RENTAL INCOME AND FROM DEALING IN SHARES. THE ASSESSEE AL SO EARNS INCOME FROM INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE. THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT O F RS.12 LACS MADE IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK LTD. THE AO CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS OUT OF WHIC H THE AFORESAID CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT HE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.12 LACS TO ONE MR.DEVARAJ AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT EMBRAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, (A SUM OF RS.6 LACS PAID ON 30.1.2011 AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS.6 LACS WAS PAID ON ITA NO.2216/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 4 2.3.2011). THE TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALISE. MR .DEVARAJ RETURNED BACK ADVANCE OF RS.12 LACS IN CASH ON 24.6.2011 AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) TO MR.DEVARAJ ASKING FOR THE DETAILS OF CASH G IVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH DATE AND MODE OF PAYMENT AND PRODUCE COP Y OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE PARTICULAR FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PAYME NT WAS MADE. THE SAID NOTICE WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. THIS FACT WAS BROUGH T TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE BANK ACC OUNT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR EXPLANATION AND THEREFO RE THE AO ADDED A SUM OF RS.12 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT U/S.6 9A OF THE ACT. 4. BEFORE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIM AND MR.DEVARAJ (REFERRED TO AS AIDE MEMORIE). IN THE SAID AIDE MEMORIE, MR.DEVARAJ IS REFERRED TO AS LAND AGGREGAT OR AND HE AGREED TO ORGANIZE PURCHASE OF 8.5 ACRES OF LAND IN EMBARAHAL LI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, IN S.NO.63, 64/1, 69/5, 7 8 AND 105 WITH APPROACH ROAD OF AT LEAST 40 FEET FOR A PRICE OF RS.23,50,00 0/- PER ACRE. THE AIDE MEMORIE IS NOT DATED AND EVIDENCES RS.6 LACS PAYMEN T TO MR.DEVARAJ AND ANOTHER RS.6 LACS TO MR.DEVARAJ ON 2.3.2011. A COP Y OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MR.DEVARAJ AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS ALSO FILED. THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE UNDER RULE 46-A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES). 5. THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A O ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHO W HOW MONEY WAS PAID BY MR.DEVARAJ TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT PROVE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE F ILED A REJOINDER TO ITA NO.2216/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 4 REMAND REPORT OF THE AO POINTING OUT THAT THE SUM OF RS.12 LACS GIVEN TO THE DEVARAJ TO THE ASSESSEE IS DULY REFLECTED IN TH E BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2011 FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2011-12. 6. THE CIT(A) CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE M R.DEVARAJ BEFORE HIM BUT THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO DO SO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO PROVE THAT THE SUM DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS MONEY RETURNE D IN CASH BY MR.DEVARAJ TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. HENCE THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO REITERATED THE PLEA AS WAS PUT FORTH BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED DR REITERATED THE STAND OF THE REVENUE AS REFLECTED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR DEPOSIT IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT WAS CLAIMED TO BE MONEY RECEIVED FROM MR.DEVARAJ. MR.DEVARAJ H AS NEITHER CONFIRMED THIS FACT NOR APPEARED BEFORE THE AO OR CIT(A) TO C ONFIRM THIS FACT. THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THERE IS A AIDE MEMOIRE AND THAT AMOUNTS PAID AS ADVANCE TO MR.DEVARAJ IS APPEARING IN BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.3.2011 AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOU RCE TO PAY MR.DEVARAJ A SUM OF RS.12 LACS ARE ALL NOT IMPORTANT. THE REC EIPT OF RS.12 LACS BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MR.DEVARAJ HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. I AM THEREFORE OF THE VI EW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAM E IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.2216/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 4 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019. SD/- ( N V VASUDEVAN ) VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 20 TH DECEMBER, 2019. / DESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FIL E BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.