Anil Kumar Das, Bhubaneswar V. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 80/CTK/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6147 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE Anil Kumar Das, Plot No.2153/2, Baruneswar Lane, Samantarapur, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant This is an appeal filed by the assessee a CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi dated 31.5.2021 2. The grievance of the assessee CIT(A) erred in confirming assesse’s bank account in demonetization period as unexplained investment. 3. Facts of the case are that the assessee from salary. The assessee filed his return of income at a total income of Rs.39,000/-, which was accepted by the CPC. The case was selected for IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL ITA No.80/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Anil Kumar Das, Plot No.2153/2, Baruneswar Lane, Samantarapur, Bhubaneswar. Vs. ITO, Ward - Bhubaneswar. No.BYTPD 8279 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida Revenue by : Shri Charan Das Date of Hearing : 07/12/ 20 Date of Pronouncement : 20 /12 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi dated 31.5.2021 for the assessment year The grievance of the assessee in the ground of CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.16,96,000/ assesse’s bank account in demonetization period as unexplained Facts of the case are that the assessee is individual deriving income from salary. The assessee filed his return of income at a total income of , which was accepted by the CPC. The case was selected for Page1 | 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH, CUTTACK JUDICIAL MEMBER -3(1), Bhubaneswar. Respondent) Saroj Kumar Parida, AR Charan Das (DR) / 2021 12/2021 gainst the order of the for the assessment year 2017-18. in the ground of appeal is that the ld the addition of Rs.16,96,000/- made in the assesse’s bank account in demonetization period as unexplained is individual deriving income from salary. The assessee filed his return of income at a total income of , which was accepted by the CPC. The case was selected for ITA No.80/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page2 | 7 limited scrutiny under CASS with the reason “large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income”. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee through online on 26.9.2018. Subsequently, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21.1.2019. In response to notice, the assessee filed detailed submission regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period, the details of which are as under: i) The assessee is a civil engineers and working under M/s. P.D. Agarwal Engineers and Contractors as site engineer having monthly salary basis. ii) During the period 18.4.2012 to 31.5.2016, he had saved Rs.2,96,000/- from salary. iii) The father of the assessee sold a property for a consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- and the same amount was given to the assessee by his father to start business. The said cash was deposited in the assessee’s bank account. 4. Since the assessee failed to furnish the gift deed regarding gift of Rs.14,00,000/- by his father and also any details of claim that Rs.2,96,000/- was out of his savings, the Assessing Officer added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. On appeal, the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the father of the assessee had a parental property and same was sold to Shri Batakrushna Sahoo for a consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-. Accordingly, Shri Sahoo gave two numbers ITA No.80/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page3 | 7 of cheque of Rs.7 lakhs each. When the cheques were deposited in the bank, same were dishonoured and accordingly, a complaint case was filed by the father of the assessee vide No.1CC 1249 of 2013 dated 9.10.2013 in the court of SDJM, Bhubaneswar. Ld A.R. submitted that Shri Batakrushna Sahoo paid Rs.14 lakhs in cash against the dishonoured cheques to the father of the assessee and in support of this a money receipt dated 6.11.2013 is placed on record, which was also placed before the SDJM, Bhubaneswar. On the basis of above Money Receipt, SDJM, Bhubaneswar disposed of the complaint filed by the assessee acquitting the alleged Sri Batakrushna Sahoo. Ld A.R. submitted that the father of the assessee gifted that Rs.14 lakhs to his son i.e. present assessee and in turn, the same amount was deposited in the bank account of the assessee during the monetization period. As regards to the amount of Rs.2,96,000/-, ld A.R. submitted that the amount was deposited out of his savings from his salary from the period 2012 to 2016 and other cash received during his marriage. Ld A.R. submitted that since the source of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee is explained, the addition may kindly be deleted. 7. Ld A.R. of the assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company Pvt Ltd vs DCIT in. W.P. No.1732 of 2020 and others order dated 4.2.2020 and submitted that on similar circumstances, Hon’ble High Court has remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration regarding the ITA No.80/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page4 | 7 source of cash deposits in the bank during monetization period. Ld A.R. also furnished gift deed made on 26 th day of March, 2016 in support of the claim of the assessee that the assessee has received Rs.14 lakhs from his father as gift. 8. Replying to above, ld DR submitted that the gift deed was not furnished before the Assessing Officer despite giving several opportunities to the assessee. Ld DR submitted that the alleged amount was received by the assessee from his father on 6.11.2013, however, the gift deed was prepared on 26.5.2016. From the above, it is clear that the gift deed was an afterthought to cover up the unexplained amount deposited in the bank account. Ld DR submitted that during monetization period, the assessee had transacted huge amount during the period November, 2016 to March, 2017 and the assessee could not explain satisfactory reply to the AO. Hence, the amount deposited in the bank account is clearly unexplained investment and the AO was justified in making the addition u/s.69 of the Act and ld CIT(A) is also fully justified in confirming the same. 9. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the amount of Rs.14 lakhs was deposited during the monetization period. When the source of the cash deposited in the bank account, it was explained that the amount was received by the father of the assessee in cash, allegedly sale consideration of ancestral property. From the order of the SDJM, Bhubaneswar, it is also ITA No.80/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page5 | 7 noted that the sale consideration was received in two cheques but same were dishonoured when it was deposited in the bank. Thereafter, the father of the assessee made complaint before the SDJM, Bhubaneswar and in between the purchaser Shri Bata Krushna Sahoo paid cash of Rs.14 lakhs and the case was resolved on the basis of Money receipt filed before the SDJM, Bhubaneswar and the Sri Bata Krushna Sahoo was acquitted. It is the claim of the assessee that same amount of Rs.14 lakhs was received by the father and in turn it was gifted to him for starting any business. The assessee is claiming that the said amount was deposited in the bank account. Another aspect is to be considered that although the gift deed is prepared in the year 2016 and the assessment was framed in 2019, as to why the gift deed was not furnished before the AO despite several opportunities given to the assessee. 10. The assessee is a civil engineer and working as site engineer with a firm having a meager salary and during the year under consideration i.e. 2017-18 has declared total income of Rs.39,000/-. On perusal of I.T. return for the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee has shown income of Rs.1,36,800/-. No return for the assessment year 2016-17 was placed on record by ld A.R. of the assessee. From the above, the claim of the assessee that he has saved the amount of Rs.2,96,000/- from his salary and gift during his marriage was not found to be convincing by the authorities below. ITA No.80/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page6 | 7 11. Be that it may, the assessee has placed on record the gift deed regarding the source of cash from his father and same was not furnished before the AO. Before the first appellate stage, the assessee had attached the gift deed made by the father of the assessee, but same could not be considered on the ground that the same was not furnished before the AO and the order was passed exparte. It is also not in dispute that the cash was received by the father of the assessee from Shri Bata Krushna Sahoo, when the complaint was lodged before the SDJM, Bhubaneswar and in support of this Money receipt was produced before the SDJM, Bhubaneswar and thereafter the matter was closed. Ld A.R. has filed a decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Salem Sree Ratnavilas Chit Company Pvt Ltd (supra), wherein, on similar facts, the matter was restored back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. 12. Accordingly in the light of the above quoted position of the parties, I am of the view that in the interests of substantial justice, the assessee may be provided with an opportunity to establish its claim by furnishing the gift deed and other related evidences before the AO. Thus, the AO is directed to consider the gift deed and SDJM order 20.8.2013 & 24.8.2013 examine the veracity of the evidence which assessee may seek to place on record in support of it and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. 13. As regards the addition of Rs.2,96,000/-, I observe that the assessee was working as site engineer and was filing the return of income. At the ITA No.80/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page7 | 7 same time, it is the contention of the assessee that he had received gifts during his marriage. As per hindu law, it is practice that during marriage, some amount of gifts might have been received on the day of marriage and also on reception, which cannot be ignored outright. Simultaneously, I am not convincing that the assessee has saved all his earning. Hence, to cover the all possible leakage of revenue and to meet the ends of justice, it would be proper to restrict the disallowance to 50% of Rs.2,96,000/-, which comes to Rs.1,48,000/-. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20 /12/2021. Sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 20 /12/2021 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Anil Kumar Das, Plot No.2153/2, Baruneswar Lane, Samantarapur, Bhubaneswar 2. The respondent: ITO, Ward -3(1), Bhubaneswar. 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//