Neena Aggarwal, Ambala City V. ITO, Ambala

ITA 520/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73512 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARDESH JINDAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 520/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT. NEENA AGGARWAL VS. THE ITO PALLEDAR MOHALLA WARD 3 AMBALA AMBALA PAN NO. AHMPA5328A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARDESH JINDAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 19/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.03.2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2012 OF CIT (APPEALS), PANCHKULA 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUND:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEALS HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE WHILE UPHOLDING THE AD DITION OF RS. 12,12,000/- IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESS EE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM RUNNING OF A BOUTIQUE IN THE NAME OF M/S INFINITE B OUTIQUE AND RETURN WAS FILED U/S 44AF AND NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 12,12,000/- IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB WHICH WAS LATER MERGE D WITH HDFC BANK. ON AN 2 ENQUIRY REGARDING THE SOURCES OF DEPOSIT, THE ASSES SEE GAVE THE FOLLOWING REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 7.12.2010. WE HAD SOLD A PIECE OF LAND IN SECTOR 9, AMBALA FOR A SUM OF RS. 10,00,000 (RS. TEN LACS ONLY) IN SEPT. 2007. IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF BOUTIQUE AND HAVE MADE SALES AMOUNTING TO RS. 14.50 LACS DUR ING THE YEAR AND HAVE ALSO EARNED PROFIT OF RS. 1,54,690/-. THE AMOUNT BEING DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS OUT OF THE S ALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND AND RECEIPTS MADE FROM SALE PR OCEEDS OF BOUTIQUE. THUS WE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 24.00 LACS IN CASH FROM THE ABOVE TWO ITEMS WHEREAS ONLY 12.12 LACS WE RE DEPOSITED IN THE SAID AMOUNT. THE REMAINING CASH WA S USED OTHERWISE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES OR FOR SAVINGS U/S 80 C. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY AND NOTED THAT ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 10 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 684555 DATED 14.9.2007 AND NO SU CH AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT PROFIT FROM THE BOUTIQUE WAS RS. 1,54,960/-, THEREFORE, IN THE OPINION OF ASSESSING OFFICER THE SOURCE OF CASH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND ACCORDINGLY HE ADDED THIS SUM TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLAN ATION GIVEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE REITERATED. THE LD. CIT(A) D ID NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION VIDE PARA 4. 1 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 4.1 THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A COPY OF SALE DEED OF THE PLOT (SUPRA) DATED 14.09.2007. AS PER THIS DEED THE APPE LLANT RECEIVED RS. 10 LACS VIDE CHEQUE NO. 684555 DATED 14.09.2007 OF STATE BANK OF INDIA. AMBALA CITY. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE CHEQUE WAS D EPOSITED BY HER IN SBI TO GET THE CASH. MOREOVER, THERE IS N O CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 10 LACS IN CENTURIAN BANK OF PUNJAB ON 14.09.2007. THE DATES OF DEPOSIT AND THE AVAILABILI TY OF CASH DO NOT TALLY EITHER FOR SALE OF PLOT OR GROSS RECEI PTS OF BOUTIQUE. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE E NTRIES OF 3 CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE AP PELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE NEXUS BETWEEN THE CASH AVAILA BILITY AND BANK DEPOSITS. AS A RESULT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,12,000/- IS CONFIRMED ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS/ INVESTMENTS IN THE BANK. 6. BEFORE US IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS RUNNING A BOUTIQUE WHEREIN SALES AMOUNTING TO RS. 14.50 LAKHS WERE MADE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PLOT AS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR A SUM OF RS. 10 LAKHS AND DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THIS SOU RCE OF RS. 24.50 LAKHS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A CERTIFICATE FROM THE BUYER OF THE PLOT FURNISHED CLEARLY SHOWS THAT BUYER OF T HE PROPERTY SHRI RAJIV KALRA WITH THE MUTUAL CONSENT HAS CANCELLED CHEQUE NO. 68 4555 FOR RS. 10 LAKHS AND INSTEAD ISSUED TWO CHEQUES BEARING NOS. 684557 DAT ED 14.9.2007 FOR RS. 5,00,000/- AND 684558 DATED 14.9.2007 FOR RS. 4, 00,000/- DRAWN ON SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 1002619886 WITH STATE BANK OF INDI A, MODEL TOWN, AMBALA CITY. THE CHEQUES WERE BEARER AGAINST WHICH CASH W AS WITHDRAWN ON 14.9.2007. A CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD FROM SHRI RAJIV KALRA WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE HIM, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE CONTENDED THAT ACTUALLY ONLY CASH WAS RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF PROPERTY. THE CHEQUES HAVE BEEN DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJIV KALRA AND THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DOUBTED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT BELIEVABLE THAT ASSESSEE F IRST OBTAINED ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AGAINST THE SALE OF PROPERTY. INSTEAD OF THAT, ASSESSEE OBTAINED TWO CHEQUES WHICH WERE ENCASHED. EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MUTUALLY EXCHANGED THE ACCOUNT PAYEE C HEQUES WITH BEARER CHEQUES THEN HOW THE ASSESSEE WAS ENABLE TO ENCASH THE SAME ON THE SAME DAY. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT HE HAS ENCASHED THE SAME ON THE SAME DAY. 4 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT CERTIFICATE IS CORRECT AND BEARER OF THIS PROP ERTY SHRI RAJIV KALRA ISSUED TWO BEARER CHEQUES NO. 684557 AND 684558, THEN HOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ENCASH THE CHEQUE ON 14.7.2007 IT SELF. THE SALE DEED IS ALSO EXECUTED ON 14.9.2007 WHICH MUST HAVE TAKEN SOMETIM E. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE GOT TIME TO EXCHANGE THE CHEQUES. ASSUMING FOR ARGU MENT SAKE THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE, STILL THE PROBLEM IS THAT ON 14.9.2007 TH E ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 4,05,000/- ONLY. THE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 14.09.2007 4,05,000 23.10.2007 60,000 27.02.2008 25,000 12.03.2008 1,00,000 17.03.2008 1,20,000 17.03.2008 1,47,000 18.03.2008 1,45,000 24.03.2008 2,10,000 TOTAL 12,12,000 9. SO, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CASH OF RS. 10 LAKHS ON 14.9.2007 I.E. RS. 9 LAKHS FROM ENCASHMENT OF TWO CHEQUES AND RS. 1 LAKH AS CA SH PAYMENT, THEN WHY ONLY RS. 4.5 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED AND THEN MONEY HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN VARIOUS INSTALLMENTS AS STATED ABOVE. NO EXPLANATION WAS GI VEN FOR THIS DISCREPANCY. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT A B EEN ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS OF CASH AND ACCORDINGLY WE CON FIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 06.03.20 14 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 6 TH MARCH, 2014 RKK 5 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 6