Inder Mohan Gulati, Morinda V. ITO, Ropar

ITA 75/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8250 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 75/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI INDER MOHAN GULATI, VS THE ITO, HOUSE NO. 818, WARD 2(2), WARD-4, ROPAR. MORINDA. PAN: AAQPG1111Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 .03.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I CHANDIGARH DATED 14.10.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,01,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPO SIT IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. 1,59,710/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 15,01,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN 2 THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED ON AIR THAT ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 15,01,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN STATE BANK OF PATIALA, NALAGARH. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE S OURCE OF ASSESSEE, IT WAS STATED THAT THIS ACCOUNT WAS OP ENED WITH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,000/- ONLY ON 05.01.2009. FU RTHER, ASSESSEE DEPOSITED A CHEQUE WHICH HE HAS RECEIVED F ROM HIS BROTHER AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 LACS ON DATED 09.02. 2009. FURTHER, BANK ITSELF HAS MADE A CASH ENTRY OF RS. 1 5 LACS ( RS. 8 LACS + RS. 7 LACS) TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE. THEREAFTER, THEY TRANSFERRED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20 L ACS TOWARDS FDR. THIS WHOLE PROCEDURE WAS ONLY TO SHOW DEPOSITS FOR HIS SON WHO WAS PLANNING TO GO ABROAD. UNFORTUNATELY, SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GONE ABR OAD, THEREAFTER BANK, BY ITSELF GIVEN A LOAN AMOUNTING T O RS. 15 LACS ON DATED 11.02.2009. THEREAFTER, BANK BY I TSELF HAS MADE CASH WITHDRAWAL ENTRY OF RS. 15 LACS WHICH BANK HAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN ON 11.02.200 9. ALL ENTRIES HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE SAME DAY. THEREF ORE, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COLLECTED THE COPIES OF THE PAY-IN-SLIPS FROM THE B ANK WHICH HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED TO SHOW THAT AMOUNT OF RS . 1000/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 05.01.2009 IN CASH AND FURT HER RS. 8 LACS AND RS. 7 LACS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED ON 11.02.2009 IN CASH. THE SLIP SHOWS THAT AMOUNT HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED ON 11.02.2009 IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE , THEREAFTER, DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE 3 ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER TRE ATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15,01,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, SOURCE OF WHICH WAS N OT EXPLAINED. ADDITION WAS, ACCORDINGLY, MADE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND SAME SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE THAT ENTRIES ARE MADE BY THE BANK ITSELF WHICH WAS THE ARRANGEMENT TO SHOW DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS PLANNING TO GO ABROAD. 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL O N RECORD AND THAT PAY-IN-SLIP SHOWS THAT AMOUNT HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS SIGNATURES, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT IS FILED ON RECORD W HICH SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSITS OF CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT THREE TIMES, AS NOTED ABOVE, TOTALING TO RS. 15,01,000/-. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOS IT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE MERELY CONTENDED TH AT IT WAS ENTRY MADE BY THE BANK ITSELF TO ACCOMMODATE HI M TO SHOW SOME BALANCE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT BECAUSE HIS S ON WAS GOING ABROAD, HOWEVER, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WA S FALSIFIED BY PAY-IN-SLIP COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4 FROM THE BANK WHICH STATED THAT THREE TIMES, CASH AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME. WHATEVER EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BAN K. THEREFORE, EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCO UNT ON VARIOUS DATES, AS NOTED ABOVE, THEREFORE, AUTHOR ITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED I N THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE HAS NO MERIT. SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 ST MARCH,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH