Sh. Yash Pal, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 510/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81100 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 510/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI YASH PAL, VS THE ITO, WARD-1(5), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AHZPP7666B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 16/12/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/12/2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2010 OF CIT(A), CHANDIGARH. 2. IN THIS APPEAL FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISE D:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,39, 000/- WHICH IS ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE EXPLANATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMI TTED IN RESPECT OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIA TED IN THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE AND AS SUCH THE ORDER IS ILLEGAL, ARBIT RARY & UNJUSTIFIED. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE IS EMPLOYED AS LAB TECHNICIAN AND WAS GETTING GROSS SALARY OF RS. 1,45 ,527/- AS PER FORM NO. 16. OUT OF THIS A SUM OF RS. 34,525/- WAS INVESTED IN THE SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS. HOWEVER, A SUM OF RS. 12.39 LAKHS WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ON AN ENQUIRY, IT W AS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- S.NO. DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT REMARKS / SOURCE OF DE POSIT 1 22.04.2005 06.06.2005 08.06.2005 22.06.2005 RS. 44,000/- RS. 30,000/- RS. 20,000/- RS. 30,000/- THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED OUT OF WITHDRAWAL MADE ON 13.04.2005 AT RS. 50,000/- FROM SAME ACCOUNT AND SALE PROCEED OF 2 AGRICULTURE PRODUCE BY MY FATHER WHO OWN 8 ACRE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. 2 02.08.2005 24.08.2005 02.09.2005 09.09.2005 03.10.2005 RS. 10,000/- RS. 4,000/- RS. 10,000/- RS. 50,000/- RS. 10,000/- THESE DEPOSIT HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWAL MADE ON 11.07.2005 AT RS. ONE LAKH FROM SAME ACCOUNT. 3 25.10.2005 RS. 2,50,000/- THE DEPOSIT WAS MADE OU T OF RS. 4 LAC. RECEIVED AS ADVANCE MONEY (BIANA) IN R/O SHOP IN THE NAME OF FATHER (TOTAL VALUE OF SHOP 10 LAC, COPY OF BIANA IS ENCLOSED FOR READY REFERENCE. 4 31.10.2005 RS. 3,75,000/- THIS DEPOSIT WAS MADE A S UNDER:- RS. 1,50,000/- BALANCE AMOUNT OF BIANA STATE ABOVE RS. 50,000/- WITHDRAWN FROM SAME ACCOUNT ON 26.10.2005 RS. 1,85,000/- WITHDRAWN FROM SAME ACCOUNT ON 26.10.2005 5 29.12.2005 RS. 2,00,000/- DEPOSITED OUT OF SALE P ROCEED OF GOLD JEWELLERY AT RS. 2.52 LACS ON 27.12.2005. 6 02.03.2006 16.03.2006 RS. 50,000/- RS. 1,25,000/- THESE DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 2 LACS MADE ON 10.01.2005 FROM SAME ACCOUNT. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THESE SUBM ISSIONS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS AND MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO VERIFYING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. AS REG ARDS, HIS PLEA THAT HIS FATHER IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND HAS GIVEN RS. 50,000 /- OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT AS PR COPY OF FARD JAMABANDI, THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF O NLY TWO ACRES AGRICULTURE LAND. THE INCOME OF WHICH IS HARDLY ENO UGH FOR HIM TO SUSTAIN BARE LIVING OF HIS FAMILY AND HE CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE IN POSITION TO ADVANCE A SINGLE RUPEE TO HIM. AS REGARDS HIS CONTENTION THAT DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN M ADE FROM WITHDRAWALS EARLIER MADE FORM THE SAME ACCOUNT, IT IS STATED TH AT HE HAS NOT CO-RELATED ANY SUCH ITEM WHICH COULD BEAR DIRECT NEXUS AND THE REFORE THIS PLEA TOO FAILS. REGARDING SOURCE OF RS. 2.50 LACS MADE ON 25.10.200 5 OUT OF BIANA TAKEN IN RESPECT OF SHOP IN THE NAME OF HIS FATHER AT RS. 4 LACS, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE AGREEMENT SO EXECUTED FOR THE SAID SHO P HAS NEVER MATERIALIZED WHICH CLEARLY GOES TO PROVE THAT IS JU ST AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SAID DEPOSIT WITHOUT ANY BONAFIDE TRA NSACTION OF THE SALE OF SHOP WHICH HAS NOT EVEN OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 2.50 LAKH IS ALSO HELD AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY IN HIS HAND. AS FAR THE SOURCE OF RS. 3.75 LAKH ON 31.10.2005, H IS PLEA IS THAT THE SAID DEPOSIT HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS EARLIER MA DE FROM HIS SAME ACCOUNT AND THE BIANA TAKEN FOR THE SHOP BY HIS FAT HER. IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CO-RELATED ANY OF THE WITHDRAWALS WITH THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 3.75 LAKH AND AS REGARDS PAYMENT OF RS. 1.50 LAKH O UT OF BIANA, IT IS ALREADY HELD IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH THAT THE EX ECUTION THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE ALLEGED SALE OF SHOP BY HIS FATHER IS NOT A BONAFIDE TRANSACTION AS THE SAID AGREEMENT HAS AL READY BEEN CANCELLED BY HIS FATHER HIMSELF. 3 IN REGARD TO SOURCE OF RS. 2 LACS ON 29.12.2005, OU T OF SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD JEWELLARY AT RS. 2.25 LAKH ON 27.12.2005. IT M AY BE STATED THAT A PHOTOCOPY OF SALE BILL PURPORTED TO BE ISSUED BY RA MESH JEWELLERS, SARAFA BAZAR, KAITHAL IN THE NAME OF SEEMA YASHPAL W/O YAS HPAL CHANDANA DOES NOT BEAR ANY SERIAL NUMBER, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT CARRY ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE. ACCORDINGLY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS REGARD IS REJECTED. 5. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND A SUM OF RS. 12.39 LAKS WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON APPEAL, SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE ASSESSING OFF ICER WERE REITERATED. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WIT H THE SAME AND ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. 7. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT SOME OF MONEY HAD BEEN RE-DEPOSITED OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME BANK AND IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED TO THE CASH FLOW STA TEMENT FILED BEFORE US. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT RECEIPTS OF ADVANCES RECEIVE D AGAINST SALE OF PLOT AS WELL AS SALE OF JEWELLERY HAD BEEN REJECTED WITH OUT CONDUCTING PROPER ENQUIRY, WHICH IS NOT FAIR. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SAL OF RECORDS WE FIND THAT SOME MONEY HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE BA NK ITSELF. SUBSTANTIAL CASH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN ON VARIOUS DATE S. EVEN HEAVY AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN SUCH AS RS. 2,50,000/-, RS. 3,75,000/-, RS. 200,000 AND RS. 1,25,000/-. THE RECEIPT FOR SALE OF JEWELLERY WAS REJECTED MERELY BY STATING THAT SERIAL NUMBER IS NOT THERE I N THE BILL WHICH IS NOT FAIR. WE FIND THAT IT IS A CASE OF SMALL ASSESSEE AND NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED IF THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK, THEREFORE, C ONSIDERING THE OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS. 6 LA KHS. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS DEPOSIT S TO RS. 6 LAKHS. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/12/2014 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 23 RD DECEMBER, 2014 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR