Shri Sunil Mathuraprasad Chaudhary, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(4), Surat

ITA 561/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67794 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K PATEL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.561/AHD/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 SUNIL MATHURAPRASAD CHAUDHARY, PROP. SUPER INDIA, U-15, WESTERN VIEW COMPLEX, ADAJAN ROAD, OPP. BHULKA, SURAT-3950009 PAN: ABKPC 8528Q VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI P. L. KUREEL, SR.D.R. , ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI MEHUL K. PATEL, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 01/10/2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 4/10/2013 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FRO M AN ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-IV, SURAT, DATED 22.01.2013. THE GRO UND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED BELOW: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN M AKING ADDITION OF RS.15,51,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED DE POSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTED. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3), DATED 26.12.2011 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF INSTALLATION AND COM MISSIONING OF FIRE ITA NO.561/AHD/2013 SUNIL MATHURAPRASAD CHAUDHARY V/S. ITO, SURAT. FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - 2 - FIGHTING SYSTEM ON CONTRACT BASIS. THE AO HAS RECEI VED AN INTIMATION THAT IN THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, HAJIRA, SURAT THE RE WAS A DEPOSIT IN CASH OF RS.15,51,000/-, DETAILED BELOW: SR. NO. DATE CASH/CHEQUE WITHDRAWAL DEPOSIT 1 30.03.2009 CASH 51000 2 30.03.2009 CASH 600000 3 31.03.2009 CASH 400000 4 31.03.2009 CASH 500000 TOTAL 1551000 3. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS AS UNDER: THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO.13362151000938 WITH ORI ENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, HAJIRA, GUJARAT BRANCH IS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES SON JAYESH SUNILKUMAR CHAUDHARY WHO IS MINOR. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS OPENED BY HIS WIFE KAMLA S. CHAUDHARY (MOTHER OF JAYESH) IN THE C APACITY OF GUARDIAN. THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT ARE RELAT ED TO CASH DEPOSITS WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY HER FROM HER PARENTS AND RELATIVES FOR THE BENEFITS OF HER MINOR CHILD JAYESH. 4. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND HELD THAT THE AFORE MENTIONED AMOUNT WAS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT AND TAXED IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER ASSIGNING FOLLOWING REASONS: ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE HAVE BEEN CARE FULLY CONSIDERED. ONUS RESTS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE AND EXPLAIN THE GE NUINENESS OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN BANK ACCOUNT WITH TRUE AND CORRECT MATERIAL EVIDENCE, AS ONLY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE AWARE OF THE SAME. THESE CIRCUMST ANTIAL FACTS PROVES THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AGGREGATING TO RS.15, 51,000/- IS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE RELATIVES OF HIS WIFE. THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO GIVE A COLOURABLE PICTURE ON THE ISSUE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK BY WAY OF CLA IMING THE SAME TO BE IN HIS SONS NAME AND DEPOSITS RECEIVED FROM HIS MOTHERS RELATIVES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS MINOR SON WITH TRUE AND CORRECT MATERIAL EVIDENCES. THE CASH BOOKS, AND THE ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE HAS SHOWN INCO ME IN HIS RETURN DO NOT GIVE A CORRECT AND TRUE PICTURE OF HIS INCOME AND I S NOT ACCEPTED. IN VIEW OF ITA NO.561/AHD/2013 SUNIL MATHURAPRASAD CHAUDHARY V/S. ITO, SURAT. FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - 3 - THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE DEPOSITS OF RS.15,51,000/- MADE IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED BANK ACCOUNT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AN D IT IS ASSESSED IN THE HAND OF ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES . ACCORDINGLY AN ADDITION OF RS.15,51,000/- IS MADE TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) IS ALSO INITIATED ON THE ISSUE SEPARATELY. 5. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AS FO LLOWS:- IN THIS CASE ADDITION OF RS.15,51,000/- WAS MADE T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS I N HER BANK ACCOUNT. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS ON HIM TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT OF HIS MINOR SONS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. IN APPEAL, THE APP ELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID BANK DEPOSITS WERE IN THE NAME OF HIS MINOR SO N WHOSE GUARDIAN WAS HIS WIFE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MINORS INCOME HAD BEEN CONTINUOUSLY CLUBBED WITH THE INCOME OF THE MOTHER WAS MORE THAN THAT OF THE FATHER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MINORS INCOME SHOULD BE CLUBBED WITH THAT OF HIS MOTHER AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY ADDITION IN HIS HANDS. HOWEVER, F ROM THE STATEMENT OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE MINORS MOTHER/APPELLANTS WIFE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE MINORS INCOME HAD NOT BEEN CLUBBED WITH HER. FURTHERMORE, THE BANK ACCOUNT STANDING IN THE NAME OF THE MINOR HAS NOT BEEN DISC LOSED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. 6. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF T HE CASH DEPOSITORS IN THE BANK. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS NOT IN RES PECT OF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS BUT PLEADED THAT THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF WIFE. BEYOND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXP LAINED ANY OTHER QUERIES AS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WIT H THE FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ESPECIALLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT. ITA NO.561/AHD/2013 SUNIL MATHURAPRASAD CHAUDHARY V/S. ITO, SURAT. FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - 4 - 7. IN THE RESULT, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 4/10/2013 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. TRUE COPY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD