Smt. Anju Rani Aggarwal, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 43/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8435 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 43/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SMT.ANJU RANI AGGARWAL VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.NO.175-176, ST.NO.1, WARD IV (2), DASHMESH NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AGCPA1564D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.03.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA DATED 11.12.2015 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LACS ON A CCOUNT OF INCOME EARNED FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RET URN OF INCOME WAS FILED AT RS.1,18,000/-. THE SOURCE OF I NCOME IS STATED TO BE TUITIONS ON SMALL SCALE. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AS PER AIR INFORMATION, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MA DE DEPOSITS OF RS.51.94 LACS IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUN T WITH AXIS BANK. THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS JOINTLY HELD BY TH E ASSESSEE 2 WITH HER HUSBAND SHRI PARVINDER KUMAR. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPO SITS IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT, RE VEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSITS IN CASH AND WITHDRA WN THE MONEY THROUGH CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF M/S RELIGARE SEC URITIES. THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A LSO PERUSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON PERUSAL OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD OPENING BALANCE OF RS.3,30,000/-. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE THERE WAS NO CASH IN HAND WI TH THE ASSESSEE AS PER RETURN FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD TUITIONS INCOME ON SMALL SCALE AND HAS TREATED THAT CASH IN HAND OF RS.30,000/- AS AGAINST RS.3,30,000/-. THER EFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LACS WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME EARNED FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3. THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRO DUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EX PLAINED THAT SHE HAS BEEN FILING RETURNS OF INCOME IN EARLI ER PAST MANY YEARS, WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEE FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT BECAUSE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAV E BEEN MAINTAINED. SHE HAD SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH HER H USBAND. THE COPIES OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS FOR EARLIER YE ARS SHOW THAT THERE WERE SMALL INCOMES AND OUT OF THE SAVING S, CASH WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND APART FROM THAT, THE ASSESSEE BEING LADY, RECEIVED CERTAIN CASH AND GIFT S FROM 3 RELATIVES, WHICH ARE IN HER POSSESSION AS ISTRIDHA N. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN THIS MATTER . 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO EXPLAIN THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.3,30,000/-. IT W AS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS FILED RETURN S FOR LAST YEARS BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAD LEFT T HE COLUMN OF OPENING BALANCE BLANK IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE THEORY OF ISTRIDHAN WAS NOT ACCEPTED BECAUSE NO SUCH EVI DENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED ON RECORD. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E WAS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 5. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 29.2.2016 A ND ON THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 2.3.2016. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED FOR 2.3.2016, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE, N OR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED TO ARGUE THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DECIDED EX-P ARTE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R. AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CASE WAS SE LECTED FOR COMPULSORY SCRUTINY BECAUSE HUGE CASH DEPOSITS WERE FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME THROUGH CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED OPENING BALANCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN A SUM OF RS.3,30,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH TH E RETURN 4 OF INCOME FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME AT RS.1,10,000/- AND A CCORDING TO THE SAME, THERE WERE NO CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE T O THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTEDLY FILING RETUR NS OF INCOME FOR EARLIER YEARS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT. THEREFORE, THE ACCUMULATION OF CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. EVEN BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE TOOK A GENERAL STATEMENT OF AVAILABILITY OF THE CASH HAVING CASH AND GIFTS R ECEIVED FROM RELATIVES ON ACCOUNT OF ISTRIDHAN BUT THE STATEME NT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE OR MATER IAL ON RECORD. THUS, THE ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED TO EXP LAIN THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.3 LACS. THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TILL D ATE IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED. THEREFOR E, IT IS DIFFICULT TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW. I, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LACS AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 3 RD MARCH, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5