SHRI KULJIT SINGH S/O SHRI GURNAM SINGH, HOSHIARPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR

ITA 373/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2396 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

1 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. 373/ASR/2019 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sh. Kuljit Singh S/o. Sh. Gurnam Singh, Vill. Ghore Shah, PO. Ranil Teh. Dasuya Distt. Hoshiarpur [PAN: BNZPS 8130E] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward Nawanshahar (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Gaurav Dhall C.A. Respondent by Sh Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.06.2022 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Jalandhar {in brevity CIT(A)} bearing appeal no. CIT(A)-1/JAL/10147/17-18, order dated 28.01.2019, passed u/s. 250(6)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity of the Act) for the Assessment year 2008-09. The impugned order was originated from the order of Income Tax Officer, 2 Dasuya (in brevity A.O) passed u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act for the order dated 21.10.2016. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the ld. A.O completed the assessment u/s. 143(3)/147 by addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs only) cash deposited in the bank account of the account No. 1075000107066281 maintained with Punjab National Bank, Talwan Disallan. Also, the bank interest amount to Rs.2519/- was added back. Total amount to Rs. 2,02,519/- was added back to the total income of the assessee. In support of this cash deposited, the assessee fled an affidavit of the Donor Brother Sh. Paramjit Singh who is residing in USA. The assessee prayed for additional evidence & remand report was drawn. The ld. CIT(A) completed the further verification and according to the verification, some discrepancies was found in the assessee’s statement and his brother’statement. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Aggrieved assessee fled appeal before us. 3. During the proceedings before ITAT, the Ld. CIT-DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). In page 5 para 4.3 of the impugned order is extracted as follows: - “4.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submission of the appellant. Cash deposited of Rs.2,00,000/- were made in bank account of the assessee during financial year 200-08. In the statement recorded before the assessing officer, the assessee has claimed that he has recorded Rs. 2 lacs from his brother Sh. Paramjit Singh and was later r4eturne bk by him. During the appeal proceedings, the assessee has filed an affidavit of Sh. Paramjit Singh 3 dated 22.02.2018 to say that Sh. Amarjit Singh has paid Rs.2,10,000/- to the assessee under some family settlement. In the remand report, the assessing officer has brought out that no supporting documentary evidence in support of the affidavit was filed. Therefore, the explanation of the assessee was not acceptable. It is observed that there is contradiction in the statement of the assessee recorded by the assessing officer and in the affidavit filed by the assessee regarding the money received by the assessee from his brother. Neither any supporting proof has been brought on record inn received in support of either of the explanation filed. Therefore, the explanation filed by the assessee is rejected. Ground o appeal no.1 is, thus, dismissed.” 4. He heard the submission of CIT-DR and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee’s statement related to deposited cash is contradictory with his brother’s statement. For source of cash deposit, only statement is not sufficient. Identity of creditors, credential of the party are necessary for substantiate the claim of source of funds. The amount was deposited in the bank, which was not declared in the return of the assessee. The simple filing of affidavit of the creditor will not serve the purpose of for source of funds. Accordingly, we are inclining to the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 5. In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.06.202 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee ) Accountant Member Judicial Member 4 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order