Sonia Gurinder Kahlon, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Baroda

ITA 819/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8130 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.819 AND 820/AHD/2014 /BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-2008 AND 2008-09 SONIA GURINDER KAHLON 23, DHANSUSHYA SOCIETY NEW SAMA ROAD BARODA. VS ITO, WARD-8(3) BARODA. %& / (APPELLANT) '( %& / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 27/11/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/11/2017 )*/ O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR ASSTT.YEARS 2007-0 8 AND 2008-09 EMANATE FROM LD.CIT(A)-VIS, BARODA IDENTICAL EX PARTE ORDERS; BOTH DATED 30.12.2013 INTERALIA CONFIRMING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING SECTI ON 68 ADDITIONS OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES IN BANK ACC OUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,37,300/- AND RS.3,25,000/-; RESPECTIVELY IN PR OCEEDING UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE A CT). 2. HEARD BOTH PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. ITA NO.819 AND 820/AHD/2014 2 3. WE NOTICED AT THE OUTSET THAT LD.CIT(A)S ORDERS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN PASSED IN EX PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR CONFIRMING THE ABOVE TWO SECTION 68 ADDITIONS IN BOTH IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS. T HE LD.COUNSEL INFORMS US THAT BOTH THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDERS COULD NOT BE T ERMED AS EX PARTE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THEREIN . WE PROCEEDED IN THIS BACKDROP TO NOTICE THAT THE AOS IDENTICAL ASSESSME NT ORDERS INDICATE ASSESSEES FAILURE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN SOURCE OF ABOVE CREDIT ENTRIES IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE VERY FACTUAL POSITION CONTINUED IN BOTH LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REP RODUCE RELEVANT LOWER APPELLATE FINDING IN FORMER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS UNDER: 6.1 DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THE FOLLOWING CREDIT ENTRIES IN ASSES SEE'S A/C NO. 1000880178 OF SBI, NEW SAMA ROAD, BARODA- DATE AMOUNT MODE 21.07.2006 51,308/- CHEQUE 01.08.2006 21,000/- CHEQUE 01.08.2006 13,980/- CHEQUE 03.08.2006 11,000/- CASH 12.09.2006 10,000/- CASH 29.01.2007 30,000/- CHEQUE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPL AIN THESE CREDIT ENTRIES. VIDE REPLY DATED 23.12.2011, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE THREE CHEQUES OF RS. 51.308/-, 21,,0007- AND 13,980 /- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 21.07.2006 AND, 01.08.2006 REPRESEN TED REFUND OF MONEY INVESTED IN 1997 IN KRISHNA BHAGYA GOVERNMENT BONDS, CASH OF RS. 11,000/- AND 10,000/- DEPOSITED ON 03.08.2006 A ND 12.09.2006 WAS AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES FROM HER H USBAND MR. ITA NO.819 AND 820/AHD/2014 3 GURVINDER AND THE CHEQUE OF RS. 30,000/- DEPOSITED ON 29.01.2007 WAS RECEIVED FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. HOWEVER, THE ASSES SEE, FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIMS ON THESE COUNTS, RESULTANTL Y, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONSIDERED THESE SUMS TO HAVE SOURCES AND ADDED THE TOTAL OF RS.1,37,300/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 6.2 VIDE ITS UNSIGNED SUBMISSION, RECEIVED IN TH IS OFFICE ON 10.12.2013, THE ASSESSED HAS REPEATED HER SUBMISSIO NS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. VIDE HER LETTER DATED 30.12. 2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HER WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 10. 12.2013 MAY BE TREATED AS FINAL FROM HER SIDE. 6.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE SUBJECT. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. SHE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HER EXP LANATION FOR THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. SHE HAS NEITHER ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OR THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CLAIMED CRE DITORS NOR HAS SHE PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IN THE EVENT, SHE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST ON HER AND RESUL TANTLY, THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, REMAINS UNE XPLAINED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO UPHOL D THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. THE ADDITION OF R S.1,37,297/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS C ONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. MR.PATEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE HAS S UCCESSFULLY BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN RELEVANT DETAILS OF HER AMOUNTS IN QUEST ION. WE HOWEVER FIND NO MERIT IN THE INSTANT ARGUMENTS AS THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE DOCUMENT FILED ON RECORD TILL TODAY ESTABLISHING FACT THAT SUMS IN QU ESTION HAVE COME FROM PAST INVESTMENTS. MR. PATEL THEREAFTER SEEKS OUR INDULG ENCE TO PLEAD FOR A REMAND ORDER REMITTING THE ISSUE BACK TO LOWER AUTHORITIES . THIS REMAND PLEA IS ALSO FOUND TO BE WITHOUT ANY MERIT AS THERE IS NO SUCH C ORRESPONDING GROUND IN BOTH APPEALS SLIGHTLY INDICATING THAT EITHER AO OR THE LD.CIT(A) HAD NOT OFFERED HER ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. WE TH EREFORE ACCEPT LD.DRS ITA NO.819 AND 820/AHD/2014 4 ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING IMPUGNED IDENTICAL ADDITION IN BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS. THESE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( MANISH BORAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( S.S. GODARA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER