Shri Tinku Kumar Mittal C-609, Felicity Emrald, Swage Farm, N.S. Road, Jaipur, Jaipur V. CIT Appeal-II, Jaipur, Appeal II, Jaipur

ITA 802/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4209 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK KUMAR KANODIA CA B
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES B JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 802/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 SHRI TINKU KUMAR MITTAL, 156A, MANGAL VIHAR, GOPALPURA BYE PASS, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AKNPM2232M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHOK KUMAR KANODIA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MS. CHANCHAL MEENA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/10/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/10/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR DATED 22.03.2019 CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF T HE LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TERMS OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143( 3) PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2014-15. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 16.11.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF R S. 2,14,310/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 2,00,000/- FROM SH. NAGAR MAL, RS. 1,50,000/- FROM SH. MAHENDRA SINGH AND RS. 1,00,000/- FROM SH. CHAJ U RAM. THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO. 802/JP/2019 TINKU KUMAR MITTAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 2 ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS. 3. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE INDEMNITY BO NDS FROM THESE PERSONS STATING THAT THE AFORESAID PERSONS ARE FARMERS AND HAVE GIVEN ABOVE CASH OUT OF THEIR AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. ON GOING THROUGH TH E INDEMNITY BONDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT NO DETAILS OF LAND HO LDING, KHASRA GIRDAWARI REPORT, EVIDENCE OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF PRODUCE HA VE BEEN FURNISHED AND THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION AN D IN PARTICULAR, TO VERIFY THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PERSONS. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSEE DIDNT PRODUCE THESE PERSONS FOR VERIFICATION AND THE AO ACCORDINGLY HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENES S OF TRANSACTIONS AND SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSIT AT RS. 4,50,000/- REMAI NED UNEXPLAINED WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ONUS LIES ON A SSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH AND EVEN IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT/PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH RECEIV ED OF RS. 4,50,000/-. HENCE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONF IRMED. AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT ON THE DIRECTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE IN DEMNITY BONDS OF THE ABOVE PERSONS WHICH WERE NEVER REJECTED BY LD. AO. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS REQUESTED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 131 FOR INDEPENDE NT INQUIRY TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PERSONS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF MAKING INDEPENDENT INQUIRY MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS ITA NO. 802/JP/2019 TINKU KUMAR MITTAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 3 OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE AFORESAID ADDI TION. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE NECESSARY AFFIDAVITS OF THESE PERSONS AND THE AO HAS FAILED TO CARRY OUT FU RTHER ENQUIRIES BY ISSUING SUMMONS U/S 131, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PENALIZED B Y TREATING THE CASH DEPOSIT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN HIS HANDS. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION SO MADE AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) MA Y BE DELETED. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MERE F ILING OF AFFIDAVITS DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM DISCHARGING THE INITI AL ONUS CAST ON HIM IN TERMS OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER PURSUING THE INDE MNITY BONDS SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED REG ARDING LAND HOLDING, KHASRA GIRDAWARI REPORT AND AGRICULTURE PRODUCE SO CLAIMED BY THESE PERSONS AND THEREFORE, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PERSONS RE MAINED UNPROVED. FURTHER, THESE PERSONS WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE INITIAL ONUS HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE BURDEN DOESNT SHIFT ON THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE, MERE NON-ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS U/S 131 DOES NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CL AIM RELIEF. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ORDER SO PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) M AY BE CONFIRMED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LIMITED ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION RE LATES TO EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF CASH DEPOSI TS OF RS 4,50,000/- FOUND DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND WHETHER THE SAME CAN BE CONSIDERED AS SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS. 2,00,000/- FROM SH. NAGARMAL, RS. 1,50,000/- FROM SH. MAHENDRA SINGH AN D RS. 1,00,000/- FROM ITA NO. 802/JP/2019 TINKU KUMAR MITTAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 4 SH. CHAJU RAM. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS SO FURN ISHED BY THESE PERSONS WHICH ARE ON IDENTICAL LINES, IT IS NOTED THAT EACH OF THESE PERSONS HAVE STATED THAT THEY ARE FARMERS INVOLVED IN FARMING AND ANIMA L HUSBANDRY, THEY DONT HAVE ANY BANKING FACILITY NEARBY, OUT OF THEIR AGRI CULTURE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND PAST SAVINGS, THEY HAVE GIVEN THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT. THE AFFIDAVITS SO SUBMITTED BY THESE PERSONS ARE SILENT IN TERMS OF QUANTUM OF PAST SAVINGS AND QUANTUM OF PAST INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NOTHING HAS BEEN STATED REGARDING LAN D HOLDING, NUMBER OF ANIMALS, ETC. THE AFFIDAVITS SO FILED IN ABSENCE O F NECESSARY CORROBORATION THEREFORE DONT SUPPORT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SE PERSONS. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE CASH ADVANCE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO WARDS PURCHASE OF FLAT, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT THE LOCALITY, AR EA, ETC OF SUCH FLAT FOR WHICH SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RE TURN OF INCOME HAS ALSO NOT DISCLOSED ANY TRANSACTION TOWARDS SALE OF FLATS . THE AFFIDAVITS SO FILED THEREFORE DONT REPRESENT A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE AC TUAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ABSENCE OF NECESSARY COR ROBORATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS FOR NECESSARY VE RIFICATION AND HAVING FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE AFFIDAVITS SO FILED. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE CONSI DERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE INITIAL ONUS CAST ON HI M IN TERMS OF SATISFYING THE TEST OF CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRA NSACTIONS SO CLAIMED BY HIM AND UNLESS THE INITIAL ONUS CAST ON THE ASSESSEE IS DISCHARGED, THE BURDEN DOESNT SHIFT ON TO REVENUE TO PROVE OTHERWISE AND MERE NON-ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS DOESNT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMI TY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) WHERE THE CASH DEPOSIT HAS BEEN FOUND NOT SA TISFACTORILY EXPLAINED AND BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HIS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. ITA NO. 802/JP/2019 TINKU KUMAR MITTAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 5 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/10/2020. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 28/10/2020 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SH. TINKU KUMAR MITTAL, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 802/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR