Sh. Kunwar Amir Ahmed, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 635/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2886 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH - SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 635/DEL/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 KUNWAR AMIR AHMED, 357/11, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT PAN AHAPA5542N VS. ITO WARD-1(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ALIGARH DATED 22 ND DECEMBER,2016 FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE AO IS IN ERROR IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SAL E OF PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS BRO THER FOR SUM OF RS. 11,51,700/- AND DEPOSIT IN BANK TO PURCHASE GOO DS, FOR THE MARRIAGE OF TWO DAUGHTER THEREFORE ADDITION OF RS. 7,28,400/- IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND CIT(A) IS IN ERROR TO IGNORE THE SAME. 2. THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDER BANK WITHDRAWAL AND CO NSIDERED DEPOSITS ENTRIES ONLY. THEREFORE AO AS WELL AS CIT( A) BOTH ARE IN ERROR IN MAKING AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,2 8,400/-. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.K. GOEL, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY: MS. BADOBANI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 23/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/06/2017 ITA NO. 635/DEL/2017 KUNWAR AMIR AHMED VS. ITO PAGE 2 OF 5 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS PER AI R INFORMATION RECEIVED BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ASSESSEE HAS DEPOS ITED CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL TOTALI NG TO RS. 17,75,600/-. THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WAS CALLED FOR REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT. IN ABSENCE OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, RE -ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE INITIATED. IT WAS GATHERED FROM THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT CASH DEPOSITS HAD BEEN MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE ENTIRE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT AND TO FURNISH D ETAILS OF TOTAL LAND HOLDING ALONGWITH PROOF THEREOF , EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF THE CASH DEPOSITS / OTHER CREDIT ENTRIES REFLECTED IN THE SAVING BAN K ACCOUNT AND PURPOSE OF WITHDRAWAL, NOTE ON AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVE D BY ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND EXPLAIN MODUS OPERANDI OF THE BU SINESS INCOME. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE AO IN WHICH EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSES ARE FOUR BROTHERS NAMELY M R. SAJID ALI, MR. NAISR ALI, MR. AMIR AHMED AND MR. RASHID ALI WHO ARE DOIN G AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND HAS SUFFICIENT AGRICULTURAL HOLDING. ON 8.8.2008 THE MARRIAGE OF TWO DAUGHTERS OF BROTHER OF ASSESSEE MR . NAISR ALI WERE SETTLED AND ALL FAMILY MEMBERS CONTRIBUTED IN THE M ARRIAGE TO THEIR ITA NO. 635/DEL/2017 KUNWAR AMIR AHMED VS. ITO PAGE 3 OF 5 SATISFACTION. HOWEVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAFETY RS. 17,00,000/- CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT D ATES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM TIME T O TIME FOR MARRIAGE PURPOSES. ALL THE BROTHERS OF ASSESSEE FIL ED THE AFFIDAVITS AND ALSO APPEARED BEFORE AO. FURTHER IN AGRICULTURAL LA ND LIPTUS AND POPULAR TREE WERE GROWN WHICH WAS SOLD IN MEERUT. OUT OF WH ICH TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 11,51,700/- WAS RECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DOING COMMISSION BUSINESS OF DEALING IN GENERIC MEDICINES. THE ASSES SEE WAS FURTHER DIRECTED TO FILE SOURCE OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE FURTHER REITERATED THAT CASH IN THE BANK W AS DEPOSITED BY HIS THREE REAL BROTHERS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED ABOUT RS. 15,00,000/- WHICH WAS MAINLY OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND OTHER AGR ICULTURAL RELATED WORK. DETAILS OF THE SAME WERE EXPLAINED. CREDIT EN TRIES WERE ALSO EXPLAINED. ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THERE WAS DEB IT ENTRY OF RS. 10,00,000/- IN HIS ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF SMT. SARO J SAXENA WHICH WAS STATED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF AGREEMENT TO SALE PURCHA SE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT FOR WHICH PAYMENT WA S ALREADY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER FINAL AGREEMENT PAYMENT WAS MADE TO SMT. SAROJ SAXENA. AO CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSES SEE IN TOTALILTY NOTED THAT THERE ARE TOTAL CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS. 21,59,60 0/- OUT OF WHICH BALANCE ACCOUNT OF RS. 7,28,400/- IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE C OLLECTIVE INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LAND HOLDINGS OF THE AS SESSEES FAMILY WAS NOT SUCH TO EXPLAIN THE BANK DEPOSITS. THEREFORE TH E AMOUNT OF RS. ITA NO. 635/DEL/2017 KUNWAR AMIR AHMED VS. ITO PAGE 4 OF 5 7,28,400/- WAS CONSIDERED AS ACCRETION OF CASH APP EARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH HAS BEEN UTILIZE D OUT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THEREFORE ADDED U/S 69A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,28,400/- WAS THUS MADE T O THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) ON THE SAME REASONING CONFIRME D THE ADDITION. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I DO NOT FI ND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE R ELIED UPON ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF KAVITA VERMA VS. IT O DATED 15 TH MARCH, 2016 IN WHICH MATTER IN ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTS. LD. COU NSEL FOR ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS JUDGMENT WILL HELP THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER WHATEVER CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY AN Y MATERIAL ON RECORD. MERE FILING OF AFFIDAVIT OF BROTHERS IS ONL Y SELF SERVING AND WOULD NOT PROVE ANYTHING IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE ENTI RE YEAR. THEREFORE, EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE THAT AMOUNT WAS CONTRIBUTED BY HIS BROTHER FOR MARRIAGE OF TWO DAUGHTER AND OUT OF SALE PROCEEDING S OF POPULAR PLANTS ETC. HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE MATTER BECAUSE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN CONTINUING IN MAKING DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. T HE SOURCE OF THE BANK DEPOSIT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. AT ONE STAGE A SSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THE BANK ACC OUNT FOR THE ITA NO. 635/DEL/2017 KUNWAR AMIR AHMED VS. ITO PAGE 5 OF 5 PURPOSE OF INCURRING MARRIAGE EXPENSES. WHEN AMOUNT S WERE WITHDRAWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE, THERE IS NO QUESTION O F REDEPOSIT OF THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS IS CONTENDED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. IT IS THEREFORE A FACT T HAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCO UNT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AO HAS ALREADY EXTENDED S UFFICIENT BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT BEING AN OLD CASE, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD TO EXPLAIN ENTIRE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, ON THE FAC E OF THE SAME SUBMISSION IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A PO SITION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS NO MERIT SAME IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 06/06/2017 *VEENA* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. PRINCIPAL CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR