SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, Agra V. ITO 4(2), Agra

ITA 337/AGR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1970 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R C TOMAR
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Peak credit

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.337/AG/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 SH. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, VS. THE ITO-4(2), 3/184, R.R. MARKET, AGRA ROSHAN MOHALLA, AGRA PAN NO.AEEPG6931N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. R.C.TOMAR RESPONDENT BY : SH. WASEEM ARSHAD DATE OF HEARING : 05/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/05/2016 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, AGRA, DATED 10.2.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE A.O. HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW TO DISB ELIEVE THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH BY THE A.O. THAT APPELLANT WAS ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CHEQUE IN LIEU OF CASH ALL COMMISSION BAS IS AT THE RATE OF RS. 15/-PER RS. 10000/- AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,27,540/- ON THE B ASIS OF PEAK MADE IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL. 2. THAT THE A.O. HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW TO DISB ELIEVE THE STATEMENT ON OATH RECORDED BY A.O. WHEREBY APPELLANT HAS DEPOSED AND CONFIRMED THAT TRANSACTION IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. IDBI 1020000195 3, PNB 43029 AND UTI 16390021000, PERTAINS TO HIS BUSINESS OF COMMISSION EARNED AT THE RATE OF RS. 15/- PER 10000/- FOR PROVIDING CHEQUE IN LIEU OF CASH PR OVIDED BY CUSTOMERS. 3. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW TO SUSTAIN ADDITION OF PEAK DEPOSIT AT RS. 827540/- ON THE PLE A THAT IT WAS DEPOSITED FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF AP PELLANT BRUISHING ASIDE ON RECORDED BY THE A.O. (EMPHASIS QUESTION NO. 6) DEPO SING THAT IT PERTAINED 2 BUSINESS FUNDS THAT IS CASH RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS C USTOMERS WHO WERE PROVIDED CHEQUE IN LIEU OF CASH TENDERED BY THEM.. 4. THAT CREDITS PRECEDED THE DEBIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. CR EDIT REPRESENTED THE CASH PROVIDED BY CUSTOMERS (CREDIT) IN LIEU OF WHIC H CHEQUE WERE ISSUED TO THEM (DEBIT) LEAVING THE NOMINAL BALANCE IN BANK ACCOUNT . 5. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD OR ALTER ANY OTHER GRO UND OF APPEAL AS MAY BE WARRANTED. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THOUGH ASSESEE STATED IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 10.12.2009 TH AT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF CLOTH, BUT HE COULD NOT ADDU CE ANY EVIDENCE TO SO PROVE. A.O. FURTHER MENTIONED THAT IN THAT VERY STATEMENT, ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING CHEQUES FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AFTER RECEIVING THE CASH FROM VARIOUS PARTIES ON WHICH HE EARNS COMMISSION @ RS.15 ON EACH RS. 10,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE PEA K CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AGGREGATED TO RS. 11,43,443 /- WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ALLEGE D PARTIES ON WHOSE BEHALF THE ASSESSEE PURPORTEDLY ISSUED THE CHEQUES. THEREF ORE, THE PEAK CREDITS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AGGRE GATING TO RS 11,43,443/- WERE TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND NET ADDITION RS. 9,25,808/- WAS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER BY GIVING CREDIT OF RS. 2,17,635/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN. 3. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UPHELD THE ACTION OF A.O. BUT ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS. 98,268/-BECAUSE OF SOME CALCULATION DIFFERENCE IN THE PEAK AMOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE ABOVE GROUNDS. 4. ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAIN T O THE IMPUGNED ADDITION 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GON E THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE MAY STATE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH WITH ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE MERELY RECEIVED COMMISSION INCOME AND THE C ASH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES TO WHOM OR ON WHOSE BEHALF CHEQUES WERE PURPORTEDLY ISSUED. NO WORTHWHILE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LED IN THIS REGARD. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT ANY SUM FOUND CREDITED HAS TO BE EXPLAINED AS TO ITS NATURE AND SOURCE BY THE ASSESSEE, 3 WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O EXPLAIN IN THE PRESENT CASE. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN FAIR ENOUGH TO TAX T HE PEAK CREDITS. LD. COUNSEL TRIED TO REWORK THE AMOUNT OF PEAK CREDITS BUT WE A RE NOT IMPRESSED WITH THAT WORKING AND THE SAID WORKING IS SELF SERVING. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS PASSED BELOW. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE L OWER AUTHORITIES IS CONFIRMED AND ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO UPHELD BY US. 7. ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFOR E DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 02/05/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR