Gouri Das Maity, Purba Medinipur V. Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

ITA 2588/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 258823514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRABAL CHOUDHURY JCIT NATE
• Assessee Lawyers: V N DUTTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Salary income; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 69; 145; 148

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS. 2588 & 2589/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-2006 & 2007-2008 PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 2588 & 2589/KOL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-2006 & 2007-2008 GOURI DAS MAITY,................................... ..................................APPELLANT VILL. JARARNAGAR, P.O. HARIA, CONTAI, DIST. PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 430 [PAN : ACRPD 6703 E] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ...............................RESPONDENT WARD-2, HALDIA, BASUDEVPUR, P.O. KHANJANCHAK, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 602 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI V.N. DUTTA, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI PRABAL CHOUDHURY, JCIT, FOR THE DEPARTMENT NATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 10, 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : DECEMBER 16, 2015 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP :- THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)- XXXIII, KOLKATA, BOTH DATED 21.08.2013 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2007-08 AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER A ND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. GROUNDS NO. 1 & 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, WHICH DO NOT CALL FO R ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. SINCE GROUND NO. 2 IS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. I.T.A. NOS. 2588 & 2589/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-2006 & 2007-2008 PAGE 2 OF 10 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,08,000/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO T HE TOTAL LINCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO IS WORKING AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER IN KALYACHAK A.T. GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, HERIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER FOR A. Y. 2005-06 ON 17.03.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,52,100/- WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14 3(1) ON 03.05.2006. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y . 2007-08, IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM CONTAI COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARBARISA BRANCH, DIST. P URBA MEDINIPUR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSITS/ CASH CERTIFICATES AND HAD ALSO EARNED INTEREST INCOME IN THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION, WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. H E, THEREFORE, REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 ON 04.03.2010, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ON 03.06.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,11,010/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.8,00,000/- M ADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN FIXED DEPOSITS/CASH CERTIFIC ATES. IN REPLY, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS MADE PARTLY THROUGH MATURITY PROCEEDS OF FIXED DEPOSITS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND PARTLY OUT OF ACCUMULATED SAVINGS FROM SALARY INCOM E. FROM THE RELEVANT DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THAT THE TOTAL MATURITY PROCEEDS OF FIXED DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS .6,92,000/- WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION, WHICH WERE AVAILABLE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSITS/C ASH CERTIFICATES. HE, HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,08,0 00/- STATED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ACCUMULATED SALARY SAVING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT EXPLAIN WHERE SUCH SAVING WAS ACCUMULATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, TREATED I.T.A. NOS. 2588 & 2589/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-2006 & 2007-2008 PAGE 3 OF 10 THE INVESTMENT FOUND TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN FIXED DEPOSITS/ CASH CERTIFICATES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,08,000/- AS UNEX PLAINED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASS ESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 30.08.2010. 5. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERR ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AFTER CONSIDERING T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1 ,08,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 4 OF HIS IMPUGNED OR DER:- 4. THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.1,08,000/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961 BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSITS MADE BY TH E APPELLANT. IT WAS GATHERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM CONTAI C OOPERATIVE BANK LTD., BARBARISA BRANCH, DIST. PURBA MEDINIPUR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,00,000/- ON 25.11.20 04/29.11.2004 IN NINE FIXED DEPOSITS WITH THE SAID BANK. THE APPE LLANT WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES, STATED THAT THE INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE OUT OF MATURITY PROCEEDS OF OLD FIXED DEPOSITS OF T HE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE MATURITY PROCEEDS OF OLD FIXED DEPOSITS HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT IN HER ACCOUNT NO. 2892 WITH THE AFORESAID BANK AND FOR INVESTMENT IN THE NEW FIXED DEPOSITS, WITHDRAWAL OF ONLY RS.6,92,000/- WAS MADE OUT OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. THUS THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,08,000/- REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN ONE MORE OPPOR TUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE AND SHE STATED THAT THE AMOU NT OF RS.1,08,000/- WAS INVESTED OUT OF HER ACCUMULATED C ASH SAVINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THIS EXPLANATION AS THE APPELLANT BEING A SALARIED PERSON COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO KEEP SUCH A HUGE CASH BALANCE IDLE AND THE REPLIES GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT WERE AMBIGUOUS. AS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO DISCHARGE HER ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,08,000/ -, THE SAME WAS TRE ATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DU RING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT AGAIN CONTENDE D THAT SHE WAS A SALARIED PERSON AND HAD DRAWN TOTAL SALARY INCOME OF RS. 16,56,841/- FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 TO 2006 -07. MOST OF THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE BEING MET BY THE HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT AND AT A CERTAIN POINT OF TIME, HER TWO SONS ALSO B ECAME EARNING MEMBERS. HENCE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,08,000/ - REPRESENTED HER ACCUMULATED CASH SAVINGS. THE APPEL LANT'S EXPLANATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SHE HAS BEEN MAIN TAINING A REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT AND HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL INVES TMENTS EARLIER WHICH HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO BE PART OF THE SOURCE OF THE NEW I.T.A. NOS. 2588 & 2589/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-2006 & 2007-2008 PAGE 4 OF 10 INVESTMENTS IN THE FIXED DEPOSITS. THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE HER ONUS OF PROVING THE SOU RCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.1,08,000/ - IN THE NEW FIXED DEPOSITS. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED AND ADDITION OF RS.1,08,000/- IS CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED BEFORE US THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,08,000/- INVESTED IN FIXED DEPOSITS/CASH CERTIFICATES WAS FROM ACCUMULAT ED SAVINGS OF THE ASSESESE FROM THE SALARY INCOME, HE HAS NOT BEEN AB LE TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WHEN THE BANK AC COUNT WAS REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, SAVINGS, IF ANY, FROM S ALARY INCOME SHOULD HAVE REFLECTED OR RETAINED THERE. THE ASSESSEE, HOW EVER, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OFFER ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD EITHER BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR EVEN BEFORE US. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON THIS ISSUE AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 7. IN GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,93,213/- MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME. 8. FROM THE RELEVANT DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MATURITY PROCEEDS OF FIXED DEPOSITS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE TOTAL INTEREST OF RS.3,47,165/- PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E. A.Y. 2005-06 AS WELL AS TO THE IMMEDIATELY FIVE PRECEDING YEARS WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. OUT OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HAD DECLARE D ONLY THE INTEREST I.T.A. NOS. 2588 & 2589/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-2006 & 2007-2008 PAGE 5 OF 10 INCOME OF RS.53,952/- PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON VERIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS ACCRUED FOR THE EARLIER YEARS BUT RECEIVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR EARLIER YEARS. HE, THER EFORE, ADDED SUCH INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.2,93,213/- TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON RECEIPT BASIS. 9. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIV EN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5.1 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 5.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT I S UNDISPUTED THAT THE INTEREST OF RS.2,93,213/- HAD ACCRUED TO T HE APPELLANT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 TO 2003-04. IT IS ALSO NOT DENIED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THIS INTEREST WAS NOT SHOWN BY HER FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION IN EARLIER YEARS. HER C ONTENTION IS THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE DEDUCTION ADMISSIBLE UND ER SECTION 80L, HER INCOME FOR THE EARLIER YEARS WAS NOT TAXAB LE AND THE INTEREST WAS TAXABLE IN HER HANDS ON ACCRUAL BASIS. IN THIS REGARD, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (I) OF SECTIO N 145 ARE RELEVANT WHICH LAY DOWN THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDE R THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' SHALL BE COMPUTED IN AC CORDANCE WITH EITHER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSE. IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE SH E HAS NOT FOLLOWED ANY SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AS EVEN IN THE OR IGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06, NO INTEREST INCOME WAS DECLARED. IF THE APPELLANT HAD MADE REGULAR DECLARATIONS OF T HE INTEREST EARNED BY HER BY WAY OF ACCRUAL IN THE EARLIER YEAR S IN THE RESPECTIVE RETURNS, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED THA T THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERCAN TILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING I.E. ON ACCRUAL BASIS. HOWEVER THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INCOME IN E ARLIER YEARS AND IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE INCOME FOR EARLI ER YEARS WAS EXEMPT. THEREFORE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED IS ONL Y WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE INCOMES FOR EARLIER YEARS WERE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THIS CONTENTION O F THE APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVED BY HER IN THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER FROM THE DETAILS GIVEN BY HER OF HER SALARY INCOME AND THE INTEREST INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID FIX ED DEPOSITS WHICH WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT APP EARS THAT HER INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEARS WAS ALSO TAXABLE. FOR E XAMPLE, THE SALARY' INCOME FOR THE F.Y. 2003-04 WAS RS. 1,76,34 3/- IN ADDITION TO WHICH INTEREST OF RS.76,040/- HAD ACCRU ED ON THE AFORESAID FIXED DEPOSITS. THUS THE TAXABLE INCOME F OR A.Y. 2004- 05 RELEVANT TO F.Y. 03-04, AFTER GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80L WOULD AMOUNT TO RS. 2,40,383/-, WHICH WAS CLEAR LY ABOVE THE I.T.A. NOS. 2588 & 2589/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-2006 & 2007-2008 PAGE 6 OF 10 MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. YET, THE APPE LLANT CHOSE NOT TO FILE HER RETURN OF INCOME AND DECLARE THE AC CRUED INTEREST IN ADDITION TO SALARY AND OTHER INCOME THAT SHE MIG HT HAVE EARNED DURING THE YEAR. HAVING CHOSEN NOT TO DECLAR E THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE FIXED DEPOSITS AS AND WHEN I T ACCRUED, THE APPELLANT CANNOT NOW BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY FROM TH E RIGOURS OF TAXATION BY SAYING THAT THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE TAXED ONLY IN THE YEARS OF ACCRUAL AND NOT THE YEAR OF RECEIPT . HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED AND THE ADDITION OF RS .2,93,213/- IS CONFIRMED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES O N THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US TH AT INTEREST ACCRUED ON FIXED DEPOSITS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THOSE YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF HER INCOM E BEING BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT AND/OR BECAUSE OF THE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE UND ER SECTION 80L, IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SIMILAR STAND WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), BUT THE SAME WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPO RT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME BY FURNISHING THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUME NTS. MOREOVER, IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, INTE REST ACCRUED ON FIXED DEPOSITS WAS NOT DECLARED BY THE ASSEESSEE AND THIS POSITION IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US. THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON FIXED DEPOSITS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS THUS WAS NOT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN OF INCOM E ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND THIS BEING THE UNDISPUTED POSITION, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS WAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION ON RECEIPT BASIS. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, WE DISMISS GROUN D NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. I.T.A. NOS. 2588 & 2589/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-2006 & 2007-2008 PAGE 7 OF 10 11. ITA NO. 2589/KOL/2013 THE ONLY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION F ROM THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AS PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IS RELAT ING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.6,38,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CON FIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 12. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE VARIOUS CREDITS APPEARING IN HER UNDISCLOSED ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WIT H CONTAI COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARBARISA BRANCH, DIST. PURBA MEDINIP UR AGGREGATING TO RS.10,76,761/-. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE CREDITS OF RS.1Q,18,000/-, RS.1,10,000/-, RS.1,16,0 00/-, RS.1,25,000/-, RS.1,26,000/- AND RS.3,73,000/- APPEARING IN THE AC COUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON 10.10.2006,04.12.2006, 04.12.2006, 18.11.2006, 1 9.12.2006 AND 31.03.2007 RESPECTIVELY. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED THE SE CREDITS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS .10,11,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF TH E ACT. 13. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDE R SECTION 68 WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON HER BEHA LF BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO CONTEND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE:- IT IS REVEAL FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE AS SESSEE OF THE RETURN FILED AFTER CONSIDERATION OF STANDARD DEDUCT ION (WHENEVER IS APPLICABLE) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS THE INCOME AMO UNTING TO AGGREGATE OF RS.16,56,841/- OF THE PERIOD OF FINANC IAL YEAR FROM 1997-98 TO 2006-07. THE COPY THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS O F THE RETURN FILED IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR PERUSAL. IT IS SUBMITTED , AS ALSO IN THE ABOVE, THAT MOST OF EXPENSES INCLUSIVE OF RUNNING H OUSEHOLD/ DAY TO DAY LIVING IS CARRIED BY HER HUSBAND AND THE MOS T OF AMOUNT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCUMULATED EITHER INVEST ING IN POST OFFICE IN NUMBER OF SMALL AMOUNT WHICH IS MATURED O R KEPT WITH I.T.A. NOS. 2588 & 2589/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-2006 & 2007-2008 PAGE 8 OF 10 HER WHICH IS EARNED DURING THE PERIOD OF FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 TO THE 2006-07 BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO AGGREGATE TO RS.16,56,841/-. DURING MOST OF THESE PERIODS THE CH ILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. TWO SONS ARE ALSO BECOME THE EARNING MEMBER OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE FACT AND THE REASON T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, DERIVING FROM SALARY INCOME, HAS BEEN ACC UMULATED AT MOST. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.10,11,000/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT THE SUM OF RS. 6,38,000/- IS DEPOSIT FROM THE ACCUM ULATED EITHER INVESTING IN POST OFFICE IN NUMBER OF SMALL AMOUNT WHICH IS MATURED OR KEPT WITH HER WHICH IS EARNED DURING THE PERIOD OF FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 TO THE 2006-07 BY THE ASSESS EE AMOUNTING TO AGGREGATE OF RS.16,56,841/-. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,73,000/ - IS DEPOSITED BY HIS SON SHRI SUDIPTA MAITY DIRECTLY TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ON 31.03.2007 AFTER WITHDRAWING THIS AMOUNT FROM HIS OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT ON 31.03.200 7. IT IS REVEAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND HIS SON. THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR PERUSAL. THE OV ERDRAFT ACCOUNT IS NOTHING BUT A KIND OF LOAN OF ACCOUNT WH ICH THE BANK CAN ALLOW AS PER TERMS, CREDITABILITY AND CAPACITY OF PERSON WHO HOLDING SUCH ACCOUNT. 14. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOU ND FULLY SATISFACTORY BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), WHO PROCEEDED TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.10,11,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER UNDER SECTION 68 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,38,000/- FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 5.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,73,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED BY SHR I SUDIPTA MAITY, THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF SHRI SUDIPTA MAITY AND HIS BALANCE SHE ET TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SHRI SUDIPTA MAITY. THE BALANCE SHEET MAKES IT CLEAR THAT AS ON 31.03.2 007, AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,73,000/- WAS RECEIVABLE BY SHRI SUDIPTA MAITY FROM THE APPELLANT. THE BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI SUDIPTA MAITY IN RESPECT OF HIS OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT NO. 108296 WITH CONTAI COOPERATIVE BANK LTD ., BARBARISA BRANCH, DIST. PURBA MEDINIPUR ALSO SHOWS A WITHDRAW AL OF RS.3,73,500/- ON 31.03.2007, THE DATE ON WHICH RS. 3,73,000/- HAV E BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT IN HER OWN BANK ACCOUNT. WHETHER THIS AMOUNT IS IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR NOT AND ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 26988 IS NOT A QUESTION PERTINENT TO THE MAIN DISPUTE I.E. WHETH ER SHRI SUDIPTA MAITY HAS GIVEN THE SAID AMOUNT TO HIS MOTHER OR NOT. FUR THER WHETHER THE APPELLANT NEEDED THE AMOUNT TO BE GIVEN BY SHRI SUD IPTA MAITY IS ALSO NOT GERMANE TO THE ISSUE AT HAND. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLAN T IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION AND WHICH WAS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF FINALIZATION OF THE ASSESSME NT. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,73,000/- DEPOSITED BY THE AP PELLANT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM HER SON SHRI SUDIPTA MAITY. AS THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED, THIS AMOU NT CANNOT BE ADDED I.T.A. NOS. 2588 & 2589/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-2006 & 2007-2008 PAGE 9 OF 10 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITI ON OF RS.3,73,000/- IS DELETED. INSOFAR AS THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.6,38,000/- IS CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN A GENERAL EXPLANATION, THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED MATURITY PROCEEDS OF POST OFFICE SAVINGS CERTIFICAT ES OR CASH SAVINGS ACCUMULATED OUT OF HER SALARY. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN GIVEN REGARDING THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS CERTIFICATES. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INVESTED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT IS IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND WAS REGULARLY OPERATING A BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE LIGH T OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXPLANATION THAT THE HUGE AMOUNT OF RS.6,38,000/- REPRESENTED MATURITY PROCEEDS OF POST OFFICE SAVING S CERTIFICATES OR ACCUMULATED CASH SAVINGS IS NOT CREDIBLE. THUS THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNTS AGGREGATING TO RS.6,38,000/- DEPOSITED IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,38, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS CONFIRMED. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED BEFORE US THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE SOURCE OF THE CREDITS OF RS.6,38,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF MATURITY PROCEEDS OF POST OFFICE SAVINGS CERTIFICATES AND/OR CASH SAVING S ACCUMULATED OUT OF HER SALARY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY HIM TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. A SIMILAR EXPLANATION OFFERE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THEM FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENC E AND SINCE NO SUCH EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN BEFORE US , WE FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,38,000/-. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, UP HELD DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSEESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DECEMBER 16, 2015. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 16 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 I.T.A. NOS. 2588 & 2589/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-2006 & 2007-2008 PAGE 10 OF 10 COPIES TO : (1) GOURI DAS MAITY, VILL. JARARNAGAR, P.O. HARIA, CONTAI, DIST. PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 430 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HALDIA, BASUDEVPUR, P.O. KHANJANCHAK, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 602 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXXIII, KOLKATA (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.