Mrs. Saliha Begum, Chennai V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle-1(1) , Chennai

ITA 9/CHNY/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0769 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी महावीर ͧसंह, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी मनोज क ु मार अĒवाल, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 9/CHNY/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Saliha Begum, No.8, Nawab Habibullah Avenue, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006. PAN: ABSPS 8581P vs. The ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 14.07.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai in ITA No.306/18-19 dated 27.01.2020. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 30.12.2018. 2 ITA No.9/Chny/2021 2. At the outset it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 287 days as the order of CIT(A) was received by assessee on 01.02.2020 and appeal was to be filed before Tribunal on or before 30.04.20220, instead the appeal was filed by assessee only on 12.01.2021 thereby delay of 257 days. The ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the delay was due to Covid-19 pandemic and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay are to be condoned during this period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and they have condoned the delay up to 28.02.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022. In term of the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal by assessee and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in making addition of cash deposit made in the bank account as unexplained amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. For this assessee has raised various grounds which need not to be reproduced. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed from the bank account of the 3 ITA No.9/Chny/2021 assessee maintaining with Royal Bank of Scotland that there is cash deposit of Rs.12 lakhs made into the bank account within this financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12. The assessee was asked to explain the sources and assessee vide letter dated 20.12.2018 stated that the assessee entered into an agreement for sale of land at Thirupullani and received advances from there. The assessee was required to file copies of agreements, the AO on noticing the sale agreement copies furnished by assessee noted that the sale agreements are unregistered documents and mode of payments, dates etc., are not mentioned. Even the assessee before AO admitted that these were not fructified till the completion of assessment. Hence he treated the cash deposit made into the bank account as unexplained amounting to Rs.12 lakh. Accordingly the same was added to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO by observing in para 7 as under:- 7. The appellant has produced Xerox copies of agreement of sales purported to have been entered into by the appellant with the aforementioned seven persons as mentioned in para 6 supra. The stamp paper has been shown as bought from Mr.G.Gengavarajan, Chennai on 22.5.2008 from Mr.M.Paramanandam, Stamp Vendor, Satthur. The appellant has sought to explain that the stamp papers were bought by the mediator but the appellant has not substantiated the claim with any documentary evidence. It is further relevant to note that the appellant 4 ITA No.9/Chny/2021 and the buyers cited in the impugned agreement are said to be residing at Chennai and Kilakarai in Ramanathapuram district respectively. It is rather intriguing to note that the claimed mediator is based at Chennai who supposed to have bought the stamp paper from a stamp vendor stationed at Sattur. It is settled position of law that the onus is on the person who makes averments. In the appellant' s case, the appellant has failed to offer satisfactory explanation with reference to the cash deposits especially in view of the observations of the AO in the assessment order with reference to the status of the sale agreement and the transaction; in view of the discrepancies noted by the undersigned as mentioned supra. Thus, I am of the view that the appellant’s claim of advance by producing sale agreement that do not stand the scrutiny is at best self-serving after-thought exercise. Hence, I am the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the AO. The appellant’s ground is dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has tried to explain the cash deposits made in to the bank i.e., Royal Bank of Scotland to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs in cash. The assessee tried to explain that this Rs.12 lakhs was received as advance by assessee for sale of agricultural land at Thirupullani and the claim was fully supported by agreements. The assessee has received advance from sale of agricultural land at Thirupullani from following six persons:- Mrs.Asilallyas Rs.3,00,000/- Mr. Ramiz’s Thaika Rs.2,20,000/- Mr. Mohammed Mahmood Rs. 2,20,000/- Mr. Mohideen Abdul Cader Rs.2,50,000/- Mr. Murugan Rs.1,50,000/- Mrs. Sithi Fathima Rs.1,50,000/- Mrs.H.Yousuf Zulatha Rs.1,50,000/- 5 ITA No.9/Chny/2021 On query from the Bench, now the ld.counsel for the assessee could not explain the sources of these persons namely Mrs.Asilallyas, etc., as mentioned above. Neither he could explain whether alleged sale of land by agreements through which these advances were received were fructified or not or the advances were returned back. Since, the assessee could not answer anything, we had no alternative except to confirm the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition. Hence, we dismiss this appeal of assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 3 rd August, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद᭭य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 3 rd August, 2022 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.