JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 630/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6142 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY MALIK CIT DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 630/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA, C-52, MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ACOPM 7915 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MALIK (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 14.05.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/05/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30 TH APRIL, 2015 OF LD. CIT (A)-2, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A O IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 7,056/- UNDER SECTION 68 IN RESPECT OF S UNDRY CREDITORS. THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UN JUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 7,056/ -. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A O IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 10,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPL AINED CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ACTION OF LD. CI T (A) IS 2 ITA NO. 630/JP/2015 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA, JAIPUR. ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FAC TS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID A DDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR A LTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT (A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 7,056 /- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 2,01,000/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE SUNDRY C REDITORS VIDE LETTER DATED 20 TH OCTOBER, 2008. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNIS H THE DETAILS SO REQUIRED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2, 01,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) R ESTRICTED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TO RS. 7,056/-. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. A/R AS WELL AS THE LD. D/R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,01,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR WANT OF NECESSARY DETAILS AND EXPLANATI ON TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN ED THAT OUT OF RS. 2,01,000/-, A SUM OF RS. 1,93,944/- PERTAINED TO CITOCORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD. FOR WHICH A CONFIRMATION WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,93,9 44/-. AS REGARDS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 7,056/-, SINCE TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS OR EXPLANATION, THE SAID ADDITION WAS SUSTA INED BY THE LD. CIT (A). EVEN 3 ITA NO. 630/JP/2015 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA, JAIPUR. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL S OR EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 7,056/-. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) QUA THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 10,00, 000/- MADE BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A) ON ACCOUNT OF C ASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 4. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CAS H IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS. 6,00,000/- ON 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 AND RS. 4,00,000/- ON 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 TOTALING TO RS. 10,00,000/-. THE AO ASKED THE ASSE SSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 10,00,000/- MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS . 10,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. C IT (A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED CASH OF RS. 10,00,000/- FROM O NE SHRINARAYAN AS ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH IS THE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THE SALE AGREEMENT. THE LD. CIT (A) CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSES SEE CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE ALSO PR ODUCED THE PURCHASER. THE AO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRINARAYAN WHO ADMITTED TO HAVE GIVEN CASH OF RS. 10,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO DID N OT ACCEPT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE PURCHASER IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A SCHEDULED TRIBE IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO A NON-SCHEDULED TRIBE PERSON. FURTHE R, SINCE THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT 4 ITA NO. 630/JP/2015 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA, JAIPUR. WAS NOT A REGISTERED AGREEMENT AND ALSO AGAINST THE PREVAILING LAW, THEREFORE, THE AO STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000 /- MADE BY THE AO. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF DEP OSIT. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHRINARAYAN AND TWO O THER PERSONS TO WHOM HE AGREED TO SELL HIS LAND AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION O F RS. 11,00,000/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT BUT ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE PURCHASER BEFORE THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS W HO HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID PAYMENT OF RS. 10,00,000/- AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DE CISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAMLABEN SURESHCHANDRA BHATTI, 44 TAMANN.COM 459 (GUJ.) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KANHAIALAL JANGID, 217 CTR 354 (RAJ.). 5.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED T HAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE SOLD TO THE ALLEGED PURCHASER, THEREFORE, THE AGREEMENT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE I S AN AFTERTHOUGHT MANIPULATION OF EVIDENCE. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN THE PURCHASER HAS ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS NOT PERMITT ED TO BE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION OF SALE COU LD NOT MATERIALIZE TILL DATE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ONLY A SELF-SE RVING DOCUMENT WHICH IS NOT A REGISTERED DOCUMENT. FURTHER, THE SAID AGREEMENT I S AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS 5 ITA NO. 630/JP/2015 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA, JAIPUR. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO SCHEDULED TRIBE CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO A NON- SCHEDULED TRIBE PERSON. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE S OURCE OF RS. 10,00,000/- DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE ON 5 TH & 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2005. DESPITE THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS. 10,00,000/-. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS COMPLETE D ON 16.12.2008 WHEREAS THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE LD. CIT (A) IS PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED ON 25.08.2005. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IS ONLY BASED ON TH E ALLEGED AGREEMENT DATED 25.08.2005 WHICH IS AN UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT REGAR DING SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT DEPOSED THE FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE BEING SCHEDULED TRIBE CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE ALLEGED PURCHASER. THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT WERE VERY WELL AWARE A BOUT THE FACT THAT THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE OR THE PURCHASER HAD EITHER APPLIED FOR CONVERSION OF THE LAND FOR NON-A GRICULTURAL USE OR HAS TAKEN ANY STEPS FOR CONVERSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NO N-AGRICULTURAL USE SO THAT THE SAID LAND COULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED AFTER CONVERSION. THEREFORE, THE MERE FILING OF AGREEMENT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LA W CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF RS. 10,00,000/- CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF 6 ITA NO. 630/JP/2015 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA, JAIPUR. THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAN IPULATED AND MANUFACTURED THE ALLEGED EVIDENCE BEING AGREEMENT TO SALE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE WHEN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO T HE ALLEGED PURCHASER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE REASON AND CIRCUMSTA NCES WHICH HAS PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) DOES NOT INS PIRE CONFIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/05/2 018. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 15/05/2018. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA, JAIPUR . 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 630/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 7 ITA NO. 630/JP/2015 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA, JAIPUR.