Shri Prem Nath Pandey, Faizabad V. The Income Tax Oficer, Faizabad

ITA 539/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70585 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.539/LKW/2011 A.Y.:2005 - 06 SHRI PREM NATH PANDEY, 8/10/155, NAKA HANUMANT NAGAR, FAIZABAD. PAN:ANJPP7728G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, FAIZABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 25/11/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 /12/2013 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT ( A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 01/07/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 2006. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(A) - I, LUCKNOW ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,200/ - AS DEPOSITED IN S/B A/C NO. 3278 IN UNITED BANK OF INDIA, FAIZABAD WHICH IS VERY MUCH EXPLAINED FROM INCOME OF THE YEAR. HOWEVER IN THIS A/C THERE WAS CLOSING BALANCE OF RS.342/ - AS ON 31/03/2005 . 2. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT ( A) - I, LUCKNOW IS QUITE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,16,550/ - BEING SMALL DEPOSITS MADE DURING IN THE S/B A/C NO. 300460 2 WITH UNITED BANK OF INDIA, FAIZABAD AS ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ARE VERY MUC H EXPLAINED AND MOST OF THE DEPOSITS ARE COVERED FROM THE WITHDRAWALS ITSELF OF THE SAME ACCOUNT OF THE SAME PERIOD. 3. BECAUSE THE APPELLANT RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE OR ALTER ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE HON'B LE MEMBERS OF THIS COURT BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. BECAUSE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGED TO BE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE AFORESAID TWO BANK ACCOUNTS AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) - I, LUCKNO W IS UNJUST, UNREASONABLE AND ALSO BAD IN LAW. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IN THIS CASE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND IN COURSE OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS , IN SPITE OF SEVERAL NOTICES, NONE APPEARE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147/144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.16,52,408/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DEPOSITS IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGR IEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A), HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,19,750/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.16,52,408/ - . FOR THIS PART ADDITION UPHELD BY LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTH ER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BUT NO PAPER BOOK OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE US BY HIM. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT 3 THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA NO. 3.3 AND 3.3.1 AND 3.3.2 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 3.3 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF STATEMENT/PASS BOOK OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS UNDER REFERENCE REVEALS THE POSITION AS UNDER: (A) SB ACCOUNT NO. 3278 WITH UNITED BANK OF INDIA, FAIZABAD THE ACCOUNT, OPENED ON 06.07.2004, SHOWS AN INITIAL DEPOSIT OF RS. 700 / - FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,500 / - ON 05.08.2004. THUS THE AD DITION FOR UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THIS ACCOUNT COULD BE ONLY RS.3,200 / - . OTHER CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS.15 / - AND RS.67 / - ARE SEEN TO BE INTEREST GRANTED BY THE BANK AND THESE AMOUNTS COULD NOT HAVE REPRESENTED DEPOSITS BY THE APPELLANT. BESIDES, THE INTEREST FOUND CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT IS PRES UMED TO FORM PART OF INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES, AS DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,200 / - IN THIS ACCOUNT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED AS THE SOURCE IS NOT LINKED TO INCOME ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAX, AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. ACCOUNT NO. 300460 WITH UNITED BANK OF INDIA, FAIZABAD AN ANALYSIS OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS FOLLOWING CREDITS BY CASH AND TRANSFER/CLEARING: DATE BY CASH BY TRANSFER/ CLEARING 03.11.2004 RS. 2500 / - - 07.12.2004 RS. 18700 / - - 2T. 12.2004 RS. 8000 / - - 20.01.2005 RS. 13000 / - 25.01.2005 - 4 TOTAL DEPOSITS (I) BY CASH RS. 1,12,550 / - (II) BY TRANSFER/CLEARING RS. 4 , 000 / - RS. 1,16.550 / - 3.3.1 CASH DEPOSITS BETWEEN 03.11.200 AND 17.03.2005 ARE INTERSPERSED BY CASH WITHDRAWAL OF VARYING AMOUNTS ON VARIOUS DATES. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS AROSE OUT OF PRECEDING CASH WITHDRAWALS THOUGH A CLAIM TO THIS EFFECT IS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THUS , EVEN IF THE PRECEDING CASH WITHDRAWALS ARE ADEQUATE TO COVER SUCCEEDING CASH DEPOSITS, TH E EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT IS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THESE CASH DEPOSITS REPRESENTED REMITTANCE OF RECEIPTS OF INCOME OTHERWISE FORMING PART OF INCOME DISCLOSED. AS REGARDS THE DEPOSITS BY WAY OF TRANSFER/CLEARING THE STATED SOURCE OF RECEIPT COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE APPELLANT. 25.01.2005 RS. 10000 / - - 28.01.2005 RS. 10000 / - - 04.02.2005 RS. 2000 / - - 15.02.2005 RS. 4000 / - - 16.02.2005 RS. 30,000 / - - 25.02.2005 RS. 3100 / - - 01.03.2005 RS. 3500 / - - 05.03.2005 RS. 3050 / - _ 10.03.2005 RS. 2500 / - - 14.03.2005 RS. 1000 / - _ 15.03.2005 - RS. 1500 / - 17.03.2005 RS. 1200 / - - RS.1,12,550 / - RS. 4000 / - 5 3.3.2 IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION ABOVE THE DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,16,550 / - ARE SUCH AS DO NOT HAVE AN EXPLAINED AND SUBSTANTIATED SOURCE. THESE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS ARE, THEREFORE, HELD TO REPRESENT THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE F.Y. 2004 - 05 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. S.B.ACCOUNT NO. 15403 WITH BANK OF BARODA, FAIZABAD AS PER THE PASSBOOK THIS BANK ACCOUNT IS OPENED ON 10.12.2005 AND THE ACCOUNT SHOWS NARRATION OF DEPOSITS BY SALARY FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 2005 TO JUNE 2006. DEPOSITS ON ACCO UNT OF SALARY MONTH WISE ARE RS. 8,000 / - EACH. THE TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THIS ACCOUNT PERTAIN TO THE F .Y. 2005 - 06 (I.E. 01.04.2005 TO 31.03.2006) RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND EVEN IF THE AO HAD TO TREAT THE DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED HE COULD DO SO ONLY FOR THE A.Y. 2006 - 07. THOUGH IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AO HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE AMOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED DEPOSITS ADDED OUT OF THIS ACCOUNT, IN THE REASONS RECORDED U/S 147 THE AO HAS TAKEN NO AMOUNTS OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THIS ACCOUNT IMPLYING THAT THE ADDITION MADE AT RS.16,52,408/ - DID NOT INCLUDE ANY AMOUNT FROM SB ACCOUNT NO. 15403 WITH B ANK OF BARODA, FAIZABAD. 5.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARAS OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN THESE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT REGARDING VARIOUS DEPOSITS IN OD A CCOUNT WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, FAIZABAD, THIS CONTENTION WAS RAISED BEFORE HIM THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS PRIOR TO DEPOSITS BUT THE SAME WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. ON THIS BASIS, HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT EVEN IF THE PRECEDING CASH WI THDRAWALS ARE ADEQUATE TO COVER THE CASH DEPOSITS, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. BEFORE US ALSO , NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE CASH DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF PRECEDING CASH WITHDRAWALS. REGARDING DEPOSITS BY WAY OF TRANSFER/CLEARING, THIS FINDING IS GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT IT COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED THAT THESE DEPOSITS ARE OUT OF STATED SOURCE OF RECEIPTS. SINCE NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US TO 6 CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF LEA RNED CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23 /1 2 /2013. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T. ASSTT. REGISTRAR