Sh. Jagtar Singh, Ropar V. ITO, Ropar

ITA 46/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5127 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES(SMC), CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 46/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SH. JAGTAR SINGH VS. THE ITO S/O SH. KISHAN SINGH WARD-2(2), ROPAR R/O H.NO. 17, STREET NO. 9 MALHOTRA COLONY, ROPAR PAN NO. CKYPS3563E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NAVDEEP MONGA RESPONDENT BY : MS. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 30/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/06/2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIS T THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, CHANDIGARH DT. 18/11/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS PER AIR INFO RMATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS. 52,91,000/- WITH BANK OF INDIA DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VAR IOUS DATES FROM 12/05/2010 TO 23/03/2011 AS NOTED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. IT WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS, THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUN T TO THE TUNE OF RS. 29,12,240/- HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED A ND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THA T HE IS AGRICULTURIST AND EARNED HIS LIVELIHOOD FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY RECORD OF HIS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY INCLUDING J -FORMS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE. REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 21,54, 000/-, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT 2 THIS CASH DEPOSITS IS OUT OF RECEIPT OF ADVANCE OF RS. 22 LAKHS AGAINST THE SALE OF LAND TO SH. KULBIR SINGH S/O SH. HAZARA SINGH. REPR ODUCTION OF THE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DISCUSSING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21, 54,000/-, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS ON ACCOUNT OF NON PRODUCTION OF SH. KULBIR SINGH, THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND WHO HAD GON E ABROAD AND SETTLED OVERSEAS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SH. JASBIR SINGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF SH. KULBIR SINGH WAS RECORDED TH EREFORE ONUS UPON ASSESSEE STOOD DISCHARGED BY PRODUCING THE PERSON HOLDING PO WER OF ATTORNEY BEFORE THE AO. NOTHING WAS SUBMITTED AS REGARD TO OTHER AD DITIONS EXCEPT REITERATING THE SUBMISSION ALREADY MADE. 5. LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 6.2 OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 6.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEL LANT AND THE DISCUSSION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ADDITION M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY W AS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. SINCE ALL THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE SAID TO BE MADE OUT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE, THE APPELLANT WAS SUPPOSED TO PRODUCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARD IN FORM OF RELEVANT DOCUME NTS SUPPORTING THE SALE OF SUCH AGRICULTURE PRODUCE. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH DOCUME NTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM. INSTEA D OF PRODUCING THE APPELLANT BY TAKING THE PLEA THAT HE HAS SETTLED OVERSEAS, TH E REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT PRODUCED ANOTHER PERSON CLAIMED TO HAVE G ENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. I AM OF THE OPINION THA T BY MERE PRODUCING ANOTHER PERSON WITH SELF SERVING GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS SAT ISFACTORILY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR HERE IS THE AVAI LABILITY OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY AND THE SALE OF AGRICULTUR E PRODUCE IN THE MARKET. AVAILABILITY OF TRUE, MATERIAL AND RELEVANT EVIDENC ES MIGHT NOT HAVE REQUIRED THE APPELLANT OR THE PERSON CARRYING GENERAL POWER OF A TTORNEY ON HIS BEHALF IN PERSONAL CAPACITY. EVEN IF THE APPELLANT IS SETTLED OVERSEAS AND SOMEBODY CARRYING AUTHENTIC GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IS AVA ILABLE ON HIS BEHALF, HE HAS TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT TO EXPLAI N THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANYTHING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR DURING THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS AND, THEREFORE, FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DI SCUSSION, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS FOR RS. 29,12, 240/- IS CONFIRMED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION, I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING AND CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,12,240/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . 3 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ARGUED WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 21,54,000/- IN CASH IN BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSE E ON 28/09/2010. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADVANCE OF RS. 22,0 0,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM SH KULBIR SINGH AGAINST SALE OF THE LAND. HE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE DEAL WAS NOT FINALIZED THEREFORE ADVANCE MADE WAS FORFEITED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT FORFEITED AMOUNT IS A CAPITA RECEIPT THEREFORE NO ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT COULD BE MADE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA CO. LTD. VS. CIT, TRIVAND RUM IN APPEAL (CIVIL) 385-386 OF 1999 DT. 14/03/2000 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION . 8. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS AS REGARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS I N THE BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER . THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA CO. LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD NO T APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 9. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE BEFOR E THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THERE ARE VARIO US CASH DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES TOTALING TO TWELVE IN NUMBERS AS NOTED AT PAG E 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE ALLEGEDLY EXPLAINED EACH AND EVERY DEP OSIT BY EXPLAINING THAT SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE FROM SALE OF POPUL AR TREES & VEGETABLES, WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK AND ADVANCE RECEIPT AGAINS T THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, SALE OF CAR ETC. THE AO HOWEVER NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ANY OF THE EXPLANATION. AS REGARDS THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 21,54,000/- IN CASH IN B ANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28/09/2010, AO NOTED THAT AGREEMENT TO SALE REVEALE D THAT THE SALE DEED OF THE LAND WAS TO BE MADE ON OR BEFORE 28/10/2011. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO 4 PRODUCE SALE DEED AND CONFIRMATION OF THE PURCHASER AND COPY OF HIS BANK STATEMENT, HOWEVER, NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFOR E THE AO. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT SALE DEED HAS NOT BEEN MADE TILL DATE . THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PURCHASER SH. KULBIR SINGH BEFORE THE A O. HOWEVER HIS GPA HOLDER SHRI JASBIR SINGH WAS PRODUCED BUT HE DID NOT PRODU CE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND ALONGWITH S OURCE OF THE PAYMENT ALONGWITH MODE OF PAYMENT BEFORE THE AO. THE GPA HO LDER SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN SOUR CE OF THE PAYMENT OF RS. 22,00,000/- AS ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF THE PROPERTY . SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ADVANCE OF RS. 22,00,000/- OR THE GENUINENESS OF TH E AGREEMENT TO SELL ITSELF. THUS ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IF ANY GENUINE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS EXECUTED FOR TAKING ADVANCE OF RS. 22,00,000/- AND ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SOURCE OF THE RECEIPT OF ADVANCE OF RS. 22,00,0 00/-. NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE PURCHASER WAS FILED AND THE PURCHASER WAS NOT P RODUCE TO VERIFY RECEIPT OF ADVANCE OF RS. 22,00,000/-. THE GPA HOLDER HAS ALRE ADY SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE NAY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SOURCE AND MODE OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE MONEY. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE MISERABLY FAI LED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ADVANCE MONEY RECEIPT OF RS. 22,00,000/- FROM SH RI KULBIR SINGH. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATION FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. THE CONTENTION AND CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL ITSELF IS IN DOUBT AND ASS ESSEE ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 21,54,000/- IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. NO INTERFERENCE IS THEREFORE CALLED FOR I N THE MATTER. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT REGARDING REST OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSI TED AS CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE DID NOT ARGUE THE APPEAL AND DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. IN MY VIEW ASSESSEE HAS FAILED 5 TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 29,12,240/-, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 01/06/2017 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, THE CIT(A), THE DR