Smt. Devendra Devender Kaur, Farrukhabad V. I.T.O. Ward-2(1), Farrukhabad

ITA 300/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 30020314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Deemed to accrue or arise in india

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (S.M.C.)AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 300/AGRA/ 2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 SMT. DEVENDRA KAUR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER W/O SH. GURNAM SINGH, WARD 2(1), C/O GAYA LUDHIANA TRANPORT CO. FARRUKHABAD THANDDI SARAK, FARRUKHABAD (PAN ABRPK 3655 M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.09.2013 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)- MUZAFFARNAGAR DATED 28.02.2013 FOR A.Y. 2007-08, CH ALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT/ INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.1,01,500/- SHOWING INCOME AS NO ACCOUNT CASE. NO DETAILS OF PROPERTY, SUNDRY ITA NO.300/AGRA/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 2 CREDITOR/CASH HAD BEEN SHOWN. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSE D THAT SHE HAS PURCHASED TWO PROPERTIES DURING THE YEAR AND ALSO SOLD ONE PROPER TY DURING THE YEAR, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS W ELL AS APPELLATE ORDER. THE A.O. ALSO PERUSED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH WHICH INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THE A.O . REPRODUCED THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FOUND THAT THER E ARE THREE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN A SUM OF RS.2,0 0,000/- I.E. RS.50,000/- ON 14.07.2006, RS.50,000/- ON 31.07.2006 AND RS.1,00,0 00/- ON 01.08.2006. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THESE DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT BUT NO REPLY HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN THIS REGARD. THE A.O., AFTER ELAB ORATE EXAMINATION, ACCEPTED PART INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION OF DEPOSIT OF RS.2,00,000/- AS ABOVE, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- WAS MADE. THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- CHALLENGED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OR EVIDENCES, LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION A ND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPELLA TE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HA D MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN T HE DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.2,00,000/-(RS.50,000 + RS.50,000 + RS.1,00,000). IT IS OBSERVED THAT BESIDES ITA NO.300/AGRA/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 3 DEPOSITS OF RS.50,000/- ON 14.07.2006 AND RS.50,000 /- ON 31.07.2006 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE APPELLANT HAD INVESTED THE AMOUNT OF R S.31,000/- IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ON 30.05.2006 AND RS.85,840/- IN CASH THUS TOTALLING TO RS.1,16,840/- IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN SEPTEMBER, 2006. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENT THAT RS.1 LAC (RS.50,000 + RS.50,000) WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH BALANCE OF RS.49,517/- AS ON 31.03.2006 AND OUT OF INCOME GARNETED AND AGR ICULTURAL INCOME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND HENCE DISMISSED. AT THE MOST, BROU GHT FORWARD CASH BALANCE AND CURRENT YEARS INCOME WAS USED FOR MEETING OUT THE CASH EXPENSES OF RS.1,16,840/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED ONUS HER REGA RDING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT WAS GIVE N OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF RS.1,00,000/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN APPE LLANTS BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH CLEARING. IN RESPONSE TO IT, THE APPELLANT HAS GIVE N ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY. INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF RS.1,00,000/- WHICH WAS CREDITED IN HER ACCOUNT THROUGH CLEARING, THE APPELLANT HAS NOW SUBMITTED THAT TWO DEPOSITS OF RS.50,000/- EACH ON 14.07.2006 AND 31.07.2006 WERE RECEIVED FROM SMT. V IMLA SAXENA AND SH. MAYANK SAXENA. THE SAME HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS REFUND OF EXC ESS AMOUNTS GIVEN TO SH. M.P. SAXENA FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. ON EXAMINING T HE BANK ACCOUNT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT NO SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT WAS EVER GIVEN TO SH. M. P. SAXENA OR SMT. VIMLA SAXENA OR SH. MAYANK SAXENA. THE APPELLAND HAD GIVE N RS.5,00,000/- THROUGH 7 CHEQUES TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF SH. M.P. SAXENA (T HE DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF) AND NO MORE AMOUNT WAS EVER GIVEN TO THEM. HENCE THE STORY OF REFUND OF EXCESS AMOUNT FALLS FLAT ON THE GROUND. THE APPELLANT REMAINED SILENT ABOUT THE SOURCE OF RS.1, 00,000/- FOR WHICH SPECIFIC TIME/OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO HER. THUS THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN GIVING MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY VERSIONS REGARDING THE DEPOSITS. SINC E THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGED HER ONUS REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT S, THE SAME HAVE RIGHTLY BEEN TAKEN AS DEEMED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE AOS A CTION IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE DISMISSED. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DO NOT FIND A NY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/-. WHATEVER EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BEFORE LD. CIT(A) HA S BEEN EXAMINED IN ITA NO.300/AGRA/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 4 DETAIL AND WAS FOUND TO BE NOT SATISFACTORY. THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) TO CH ALLENGE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WHATEVER EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.2,00,000/- ON THREE DIFFERENT DATES, LD. CIT( A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HER ONUS REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HAS NO MERIT AND IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICI AL MEMBER AMIT/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY