MRUDULA CHANDRAKANT VORA, MUMBAI V. ITO 25(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5242/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 524219914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DHARMESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, CH CHCH CH INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI - B BENCH MUMBAI . . , / ! ! ! ! , BEFORE S/SH.B.R.MITTAL,JUDICIAL MEMBE R & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 5242/MUM/2011, ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 MRUDULA CHANDRAKANT VORA 1904, MAYUR TOWERS, CHANDAVARKAR ROAD, ABOVE KALA NIKETAN, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400092 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 25(2) (4), MUMBAI. PAN: AEMPV2322J ( $% / APPELLANT ) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) $% $% $% $% ( (( ( ) ) ) ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH &'$% ( ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR ' ' ' ' ( (( ( *+ *+ *+ *+ / DATE OF HEARING : 03 . 02 .201 4 ,-# ( *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.02 .201 4 ' ' ' ' , 1961 ( (( ( 254 )1( *.* *.* *.* *.* / / / / ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,A.M: CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2011OF THE CIT(A) -35,MUMBAI,ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68C EVEN THOUGH THE DETAILED EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID CR EDIT AND THEREBY ERRED IN GRANTING ONLY A PARTIAL OF RELIEF OF RS. 8,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANT. 2.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONSIDERING ONLY RS. 8,00,000/- AS THE OPENING CAPITAL CONSISTI NG OF PAST SAVINGS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION INSTEAD OF RS. 10,00,000/- AS ESTIMATED BY THE APPELLANT. 3.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT OUT OF TOTAL CASH DEPOSI TED, RS. 10,00,000/- REPRESENTS THE SALE PROCEEDS O F GOLD ORNAMENTS FOR WHICH DETAILED EXPLANATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPELLANT WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SUM OF RS, 8,00,000/- FOR WHICH RELIEF HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT INCL UDES SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY ALSO. 4.APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME O N 30.09.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.12,70,122/-.ASSESSING OFFICER FINALISED THE ASSE SSMENT ON 29.12.2010 U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.32 .70 LAKHS.THOUGH THERE ARE THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL,YET THE EFFECTIVE GROUND IS ONLY ONE AND IT DEALS WITH ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 2. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CA SH OF RS.20 LAKHS IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH SYNDICATE BANK,AS PET THE AIR INFOR MATION,THAT THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILE D ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME.AO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS.HE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE 2 ITA NO. 5242/MUM/2011 MRUDULA CHANDRAKANT VORA ASSESSEE.BUT,HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF RS.7 LAKHS WAS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WERE CASH D EPOSITS OF RS.7,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE BANK ON 26.3.2008 AND THEREFORE,THE SAID SUM C OULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 20 LAKHS IN THE SYNDICATE BANK. HE FURTHER HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS INCLUDING OF COPIES OF BILLS/ VOU CHERS.HE HELD THAT SHECOULD NOT EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.20 LAKHS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH SY NDICATE BANK WHICH WAS NOT FORMING PART OF HER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE ADDED THE SA ME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT/INVESTMENT. 3. ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R,HE HELD THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH AXIS BANK WAS DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET W HEREAS SHE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH SYNDICATE BANKS IN THE BALANCE SHEET,THAT CASH DEPOSITS RS.7 LAKHS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION,THAT THE CASH DE POSITS OF RS.20,00,000/-, APPEARING IN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE SYNDICATE BANK,WAS NOT DISCLOSE D,THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OUT OF RS.20 LAKHS A SUM OF RS.7,00,000/- WAS ALREADY OFFE RED FOR TAXATION COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT,THAT TH ERE WAS NO WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM ANY ACCOUNT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING COULD NOT BE ALLOWED,THAT SHE WAS LIABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF RS.20 LAKHS IN TH E SYNDICATE BANK,THAT THE AO HAD TAXED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WITHOUT GIVING ANY CREDIT FOR PAST SAVINGS A ND SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN OLD LADY,THAT REASONABLE ALLOWANCE HAD TO BE G IVEN FOR HER PAST SAVINGS. HE FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT SHE HAD SOLD JEWELLERY OF 825 GMS YET NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS REGARD,THAT IT WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO HOW THE ACCUMULATED SAVINGS OF RS.20 LAKHS INCLUDING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF JEWELLERY WERE KEPT IN HAND TILL THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL,THAT SHE COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE FOR HAVING DEPOSITED AND WITHDRAWN ANY AMOUNT FROM THE BANK IN THE EARLI ER YEARS,THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 20 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT RS.7 LAKHS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE AXIS BANK AND SAME WERE OFFERED FOR TAXATION.CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY CREDIT FOR PA ST SAVINGS IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT,FAA HELD THAT IT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED TO ACCEPT THAT A SUM OF RS.8.00, 000/- WAS REMAINING WITH THE ASSESSEE AS PAST SAVINGS OVER A PERIOD OF 35 YEARS INCLUDING THE SA LE PROCEEDS OF JEWELLERY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.HE ALSO HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT 825 G MS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS SOLD DURING THIS YEAR COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENC E.FINALLY,HE HELD THAT IT WAS REASONABLE TO PRESUME THAT SHE COULD HAVE SAVED RS. 8 LAKHS AND SAME SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AS IT HAD TO BE TREATED AS DEPOSITED FROM KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME,THAT THE B ALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 12 LAKHS HAD TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE. ACCORDINGLY,THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS RESTRIC TED TO RS.12,00,000/. 4. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD JEWELLERY,THAT SALE PROCEEDS OF THE JEWELLERY HAD TO BE GIVEN DUE CREDI T,THAT SHE HAD PAST SAVINGS AND SAME WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT,THAT ADDITION SUSTAIN ED BY THE FAA WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS,THAT SHE WAS DOING TAILORING ETC.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE ABOUT SALE OF JEWELLERY,THAT SHE DID NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFO RE THE AO OR THE FAA ABOUT THE CASH DEPOSITED WITH THE BANK. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT WHILE FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME SHE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE BANK ACCOUNT SHE WAS MAINTAINING WITH THE SYNDICATE BANK AND WHERE CASH OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED.IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE AIR INFORMATION THAT EXISTENCE OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS CAME TO THE KNO WLEDGE OF THE AO.ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO AND FAA OR BEFORE US AS TO WHY THE SAID INFORMATION WAS NOT DISCLOSED.FILING A RETURN OF INCOME AND NOT DISCLOS ING AN ACCOUNT,HAVING DEPOSIT OF RS.20 LAKHS,CANNOT BE TREATED A NORMAL BEHAVIOR,ESPECIALL Y FOR A PERSON WHO CLAIMS THAT IT WAS HER 3 ITA NO. 5242/MUM/2011 MRUDULA CHANDRAKANT VORA LIFETIME-SAVING.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT LEAD ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF SALE OF JEWELLERY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION.WE KNOW THAT IT IS A CASE OF ESTIMATION ONLY.FAA HAS DELIBERATED UPON ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAS ESTIMATED THAT OUT OF RS. 20 LAKHS,RS.8 LAKHS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS PAST SAVINGS .IN OUR OPINION HE HAS ADOPTED A VERY BALANCED AND PRAGMATIC APPROACH.BEFORE US,AR WAS NOT ABLE TO JUSTIFY ANY OTHER STAND WITH BELIEVABLE REASONS.IN OUR OPINION FAA HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE,F AIR AND JUST CONCESSION TO THE ASSESSEE.THEREFORE, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE FAA ,WE DECIDE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST HER. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 0 1 '0* 2 3 V VV V 4* ( * 56 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. / ( ,-# 7 19 QJOJH QJOJH QJOJH QJOJH , 2014 - ( . . SD/- SD/- ( . . . B.R.MITTAL) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 8' /DATE:19.02.2014 SK / / / / ( (( ( &*9 &*9 &*9 &*9 : 9#* : 9#* : 9#* : 9#* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / $% 2. RESPONDENT / &'$% 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ ; < , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / ; < 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / 9=. &*' CH CHCH CH , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ . > . '9* &* //TRUE COPY// /' / BY ORDER, ? / 5 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.