Shri Prabhjit Singh Sidhu, Chandigarh V. The Dy Director of Income Tax, Chandigarh

ITA 910/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8267 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 910/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SH. PRABHJIT SINGH SIDHU, VS. THE DCIT, CHANDIGARH (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH PAN NO. BIPPS2213D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 07.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.03.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-43, NEW DELHI DATED 23.10.2015 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,50,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MA DE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,50,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 10.11.2008. THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED AN E.MAIL OF SHRI SANGRAM SINGH GILL S/O LATE SHRI GUR PREET SINGH GILL THAT AT THE TIME OF HIS WEDDING AN AMOUNT RS. 4,50,000/- WA S PAID TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF GARMENTS AND JEWELLERY FOR THE PURP OSE OF HIS MARRIAGE. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE. THE 2 ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, TREATING THE CASH DEPO SIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE ADDITION O F RS. 4,50,000/- BECAUSE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS NOT EXPLAINE D AND PROVED. 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT HE IS A NON RESIDENT AND CANADIAN CITIZEN, HE DID NOT COME TO INDIA IN F INANCIAL YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. HE WAS IN INDIA ONLY FROM 10.1 .2009 TO 15.2.2009. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY RENTAL INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME DURING THE YEAR. HE WAS A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE OF GENERAL MOTORS IN USA DURING THAT YEAR AND HAS NO BUSINESS INTEREST IN INDIA. RS. 4,50,000/- IN CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUN T BY LATE SHRI GURPREET SINGH GILL, COUSIN OF ASSESSEE, RETIRED CHIEF ENGIN EER, PSEB FOR HOUSE HOLD GOODS TO BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHAL F OF SON OF MR.GILL WHO WAS IN NORTHERN AMERICA AT THAT TIME. MR. GILL RET IRED IN THE BEGINNING OF 2007 AND HAD LAST DRAWN AN ANNUAL SALARY OF AROUND RS. 14 LACS AND GOT RS. 35 LACS AS RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND HAD ALSO AGRICUL TURAL INCOME. THUS, HE HAD SUFFICIENT INCOME TO MAKE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. MR. GILL DIED ON 16.3.2009. THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE PURCHASES ON BEHALF OF MR. GILL. 4. LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THAT NO CONFIRMATION IS FILED AND NO EVIDE NCE OF SOURCE OF MAKING CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FILED. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I AM NO T INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SINCE THE RE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT OF 3 RS. 4,50,000/- IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REFORE, ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SAID CASH DEPOSIT I N HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE MERELY CONTENDED THAT AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY SHRI GURPREET SINGH GILL AND WAS MAKING PURCHASES IN USA FOR WE DDING OF HIS SON. HOWEVER, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SU PPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. EVEN NO CONFIRMATION OR SOURC ES OF INCOME OF THE PERSON WHO MADE ALLEGED DEPOSIT HAVE BEEN FILED. ME RE FILING OF E.MAIL CERTIFICATE OF SHRI SANGRAM SINGH S/O LATE SHRI GUR PREET SINGH GILL WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDEN CE ON RECORD, IN SUPPORT OF EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. I ACCORDINGLY, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS A ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16 TH MARCH, 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR