BHAWANI SINGH, Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 407/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0546 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI JCIT DHK
• Section: 68; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 407/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 BHAWANI SINGH, S/O- SHRI NAR SINGH, VILLAGE- THADA, PO-KHIJURIWAS, TEHSIL- TIJARA, ALWAR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHIWADI, ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: CQVPS 2509 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE (NOTICE RETURNED UNSERVED) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 10/09/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/09/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2017 OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 46.00 LACS MADE BY THE ITO, WAR D, BHIWADI, ALWAR ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE ASSES SEES BANK ACCOUNT. WHILE CONFIRMING ADDITION, THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR IGNORED THE FACT THAT CASH DEPOSIT BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF EARLIER DEPOSIT MADE BY HIM FROM HIS SAME BANK ACCO UNT. 2. THE ASSESSEE CARVES TO LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA 407/JP/2017_ BHAWANI SINGH VS ITO 2 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL IS CALLED FOR HEARING. IT TRANSPIRES FROM THE RECORD T HAT ON LAST 7-8 OCCASIONS WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING, THE ASSESSEE TOOK ADJOURNMENTS AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE STOPPED APPEARING IN TH IS APPEAL. AS NONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11/7/2018, TH E TRIBUNAL DIRECTED TO ISSUE FRESH NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING ON 1 0/09/2018 I.E. TODAY. THE NOTICE ISSUED THROUGH RPAD HAS BEEN RECEIVED BAC K UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS THAT THE RECIPIENT IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. ACCORDINGLY, IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE WE PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL EX PARTE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS. 95.00 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH CO RPORATION BANK, BHIWADI DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN RESP ONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT RS. 20.00 LACS WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF C ASH WITHDRAWAL ON 13/5/2008 AND RS. 29.00 LACS WAS DEPOSITED FROM CASH RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 18/8/2008. THE BALA NCE OF RS. 46.00 LACS WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS OUT OF THE AC CUMULATED CASH IN HAND AND OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND SOLD ON 18/8/ 2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE ITA 407/JP/2017_ BHAWANI SINGH VS ITO 3 EXPLANATION OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH OF RS. 29.00 LA CS RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND FURTHER RS. 20.00 LAC S AS OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWN FROM BANK. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE THE ADDITION OF RS. 46.00 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DE POSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEP T THE EXPLANATION AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED ITS CONTENTION IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER: THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS. 95 LAKHS IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 073500101002694 MAI NTAINED WITH CORPORATION BANK AND THE ASSESSEE SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS. 3,32,00,000/- (OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEES SHARE WAS 1/3 RD AND DEPOSITED RS. 1,08,99,999/- IN BANK IN FINANCI AL YEAR 2006-07) AND ALSO AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD FOR RS. 1, 59,00,000 ON 18/8/2008 (OUT OF WHICH CASH RECEIVED RS. 29 LAKHS). AS PER PARA 2 OF PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, DETAILS OF MAJOR CASH RECEIPT/INFLOW IS AS BELOW: CASH WITHDRAWAL RS. 950000 ON 31/08/2006 CASH WITHDRAWAL RS. 7900000 ON 06/09/2006 CASH RECD. AGAINST SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND RS.290 0000 ON 18/08/2008 CASH WITHDRAWAL OUT OF KCC DEPOSIT RS. 2000000 ON 13/05/2008 OUT OF CASH BALANCE OF RS. 9150000/- REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE, THE LD ITO BHIWADI CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED RS. 4900000/- AND T HE AMOUNT OF RS. 4250000 WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ITO AS UNEXPLAINED ON THE PLEA TH AT RS. 4250000 WAS KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH FOR MORE THAN 2 YEARS WHICH WA S NOT A NATURAL FACT ITA 407/JP/2017_ BHAWANI SINGH VS ITO 4 PARTICULARLY, WHEN ASSESSEE IS HAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND NO PERSON WILL TAKE RISK TO KEEP SUCH HUGE AMOUNT IN CASH FOR MORE THAN TWO YEA RS. WHILE MAKING ADDITION THE LD ITO, BHIWADI HAS MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A TIME GAP BETWEEN THE DATES WHEN THE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN AND REDEPOSITED THE SAME IN BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED WITH EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THESE WITHDR AWALS WERE USED FOR SOME PURPOSE OTHER THAN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) ALSO DID NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING WITH REGARD TO OTHER USE OF THE MONEY AND H E JUST CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE ITO. THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT REITERATION OF THE CONTENTION AS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THESE CONTENTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS AND D ECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 4.3 TO 4.3.2 AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOLLOWING FACTS HAVE EMERGED; 1. THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, A CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 95 LAKHS WAS FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AT THE CORPORATION BANK. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE HIS RETURN OF IN COME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. THAT THE A.O AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 29/03/2016. APPELLANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ON 28/11/2016 DECLARING INCOME AT RS. 3, 60,718/-. 4. THAT ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O HAS ACCEPTED THE GE NUINENESS OF CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 49 LAKHS. HOWEVER, B ALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 46 LAKHS WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPE LLANT FOR WANT OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCES ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ITA 407/JP/2017_ BHAWANI SINGH VS ITO 5 5. THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 46 LAKHS U/S 68 OF THE ACT . 6. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 46 LAKHS WERE DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH GENERATED OUT OF CASH WI THDRAWAL MADE BY HIM ON 31/08/2006 RS.9,50,000/-) AND ON 06/09/20 06 (RS.79,00,000/-). 7. THAT THE A.O CONTENDED THAT OUT OF CASH WITHDRAW AL OF RS. 88,50,000/- THE AMOUNT OF RS. 46 LAKHS STAND UTILIS ED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND BY 05/02/2007. AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 4 2,50,000/- CANNOT BE AN EXPLANATION FOR DEPOSIT OF THE SAME CA SH AFTER 2 YEARS. 4.3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS. ANY EXPLANATION AS TO THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS HAS TO BE SEEN FROM THE REA SONABLENESS POINT OF VIEW AND SHOULD BE IN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY. ANY EXPLANATION WHICH IS FARFETCHED CANNOT BE HELD AS A VALID AND GOOD EXPLA NATION. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THE A.O HAS ALREADY GIVEN CREDIT OF RS. 49 LAKHS WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE A REASONABLE EXPLANATION. BUT WITH REGA RD TO BALANCE RS. 46 LAKHS, THE APPELLANT IS TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT FROM A CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE 2 YEARS AGO. THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF REASONABLE E XPLANATION AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.OS DECISION WITH REGARD TO TREATING CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS, 46 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED I S SUSTAINED AND THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMI SSED. THUS, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF RS. 49.00 LACS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK AT THE TIME OF PURC HASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 THE N THE CLAIM OF KEEPING THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 49.00 LACS FOR LAST 2-3 YEAR S IN HAND WAS NOT SATISFACTORY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE UTILIZATION OF THE SAID ITA 407/JP/2017_ BHAWANI SINGH VS ITO 6 AMOUNT IN THE MEAN TIME. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE A SSESSEE WITHDRAWN RS. 88,50,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF LAND, HOWEVER, THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ONLY RS. 46.00 LACS WAS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF LAN D DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND THE BALANCE WAS WITH THE ASSESSEE. TH IS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS OTHERWISE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE UTIL IZATION OF THE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS BEEN EXPLAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO THE EXTENT WHICH WAS SHOWN IN THE TITLED DOCUMENT AND NOT ACTUAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE PR EPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PAYMENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATIONS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE TIME GAP OF TWO YEARS FOR KEEPING SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OF RS. 49.00 LACS/42.50 LACS IN HAND. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE OR MERITS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/09/2018. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 ITA 407/JP/2017_ BHAWANI SINGH VS ITO 7 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI BHAWANI SINGH, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- BHIWADI, ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 407/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR