Smt. R.K. Saraswathi, V. ITO,

ITA 92/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0277 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIBHA

Judgement Text

ITA.92/BANG/2014 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.92/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SMT. R. K. SARASWATHI, NO.1062, 7 TH A MAIN, 3 RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU .. APPELLANT PAN : AMKPK3895R V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. PRATIBHA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JCIT HEARD ON : 22.06.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 15.07.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IT IS AGGRIEVED T HAT ADDITION OF RS.36,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO FOR CREDITS IN HER BA NK ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT (A)-II, BENGALURU. 02. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAVING INCOME F ROM BUSINESS HAD FILED HER RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.5,29,250/- FOR THE IMPUGNED ITA.92/BANG/2014 PAGE - 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR. BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROV IDING CONSULTANCY IN EDUCATION. ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A BANK ACCOUNT WITH CANARA BANK, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, JOINTLY HELD WITH HER DAUGH TER. IN THE SAID ACCOUNT THERE WERE DEPOSITS TOTALLING TO RS.28 LAKHS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, FOR WHICH EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCE WAS SOUGH T BY THE AO. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SUM REPRESENTED OPENING CASH BALA NCE WITH HER AS ON 01.04.2008. ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED STATEMENT OF AF FAIRS AS ON 31.03.2008 WHEREIN CASH BALANCE OF RS.36 LAKHS WAS SHOWN. ASS ESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CASH HELD BY HER AS ON 01.04.2008 WHEREUPON SHE GAVE THE FOLLOWING DETAILS : 03. AO HAS MADE A VERIFICATION OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT WITH SREE CHARAN SOUHARDHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND FOUND THAT THE TOTA L LOAN OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,55,000/- STOOD RELEASED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 07 .07.2005. AS PER THE AO IT WAS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT ANY PART OF THE SAID LOAN WOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE AS CASH ON 31.03.2008. SIMILA RLY AO ALSO NOTED THAT ITA.92/BANG/2014 PAGE - 3 LOAN OF RS.17 LAKHS TAKEN FROM KALIDHASA SAHAKARA B ANK WAS SANCTIONED ON 13.07.2003 AND THERE WAS NO FURTHER LOANS FROM T HE SAID BANK AFTER THE SAID DATE. VIS-A-VIS, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT S HE HAD SAVINGS OF RS.17,62,454/-, AO FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO ACCEPTA BLE EVIDENCE SHOWING CASH ACCUMULATION. FURTHER AS PER THE AO, LOANS TA KEN FROM SRI KALIDHASA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA AND SHREE CHARAN COOPERATIV E BANK CARRIED INTERESTS OF 14.75% AND 14.5% RESPECTIVELY AND IT W AS NOT PROBABLE FOR SOMEBODY TO KEEP MONEY AT HOME IN CASH, PAYING HUGE INTEREST ON LOANS. HE THUS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AS SESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.36 LAKHS, BEING OPENING BALANCE OF C ASH CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 04. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) DID N OT MEET WITH ANY SUCCESS. CIT (A) ALSO REFUSED TO ACCEPT FRESH EVID ENCE FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF DECLARATION FROM HER HUSBAND DR. H. V. KRISHNASWAMY, WHEREIN HE STATED THAT HE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS .10 LAKHS EACH EVERY YEAR FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE BANK ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE. CIT (A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS WAS NOT A PIECE OF EVIDENCE, BUT ONLY A STATEMENT GIVEN AS AN AFTER THOUGHT. THUS HE CONFI RMED THE ORDER OF AO. ITA.92/BANG/2014 PAGE - 4 05. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF L OWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2008 TO 31.03.2009 AND THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.36 LAKH S WAS CLEARLY SHOWN THEREIN. AS PER THE LD. AR, THE BANK ACCOUNTS REFL ECTED WITHDRAWAL OF MONEY BY ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE, LD. AR SUBMITTED T HAT THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY ASSESSEES HUSBAND DR. H. V. KRISHNASWAMY WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY CIT (A) AND NOT EVEN CONSIDERED BY HIM. ACCORDING TO HER IN ANY CASE, OPENING BALANCE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME O F THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. 06. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTH ORITIES BELOW. 07. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SUM OF RS.36 LAKHS WAS THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2008 AND THIS WAS DULY SHOWN IN ITS CASH BOOK FOR PREVIOUS YEAR ENDING 31.03.2008. IF THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE IS ACCEPTED, ANY INVESTMENT MADE BY ANY ASSESSEE COULD BE EASILY EXP LAINED AWAY AS COMING OUT OF THE OPENING CASH BALANCE. NO DOUBT A N ASSESSEE IS FREE TO CLAIM THAT SHE/HE WAS HOLDING SUBSTANTIAL CASH BALA NCE ON THE OPENING DAY OF A YEAR. HOWEVER ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTA BLISH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE / SHE HAD HELD SUCH CASH BALANCE. IN THE CASE BEFORE ME, ITA.92/BANG/2014 PAGE - 5 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT OUT OF RS.36 LAKHS A SUM OF RS.8,37,546/- WAS OUT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM SREE CHARAN COOPERATIVE BANK AND A LOAN OF RS.10 LAKHS FROM SRI KALIDHASA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA. AO HAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE LOANS FROM THESE BANKS WERE TA KEN MUCH EARLIER TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IN THE C ASE OF LOAN FROM SREE CHARAN COOPERATIVE BANK, LOANS WERE RELEASED TO TH E ASSESSEE THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. FURTHER NO PE RSON IN RIGHT SENSE WOULD HAVE TAKEN LOANS CARRYING INTEREST OF 14.75% AND 14 .5 % AND KEPT THE CASH AT HIS / HER HOME. 08. AS FOR THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A SU M OF RS.17,62,454/- CAME OUT OF EARLIER SAVINGS, JUST BECAUSE A CASH FL OW STATEMENT WAS FILED OR JUST FOR A REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS O F INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEARS WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW ACCUMULATION OF SO MUCH CASH. ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A NUMBER OF BANK ACC OUNTS. IN SUCH A SITUATION IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING A CASH OF RS.36 LAKHS IN HER CASH BOOK AS ON 01.04.2008. PREPONDER ANCE OF PROBABILITY IS THAT CASH WAS INTRODUCED ONLY TO EXPLAIN THE INVEST MENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. I DO N OT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA.92/BANG/2014 PAGE - 6 09. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR