Rajinder Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 922/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8434 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 922/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) RAJINDER SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHOP NO.1, BLOCK-A, WARD VI (2), OPP. RAGHUNATH MANDIR, RISHI NAGAR, AGGAR NAGAR, FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA (PUNJAB). PAN: AZQPS5789P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SATISH BANSAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.03.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA DATED 30.11.2015 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,02,100/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.7,54,400/-. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RET URN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,08,700/- WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM DRIVER-CUM-TAXI BO OKING SERVICE PROVIDER. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR COMPUL SORY SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS FILED RETURN ON ESTIMATE BASIS BEIN G NO 2 ACCOUNT CASE AND IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE NATUR E OF BUSINESS HAS BEEN SHOWN AS COMMISSION AGENT. DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN NOTIC ED FROM THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT (AIR) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING A BANK AC COUNT WITH AXIS BANK, LUDHIANA, IN WHICH HE HAS MADE CASH DEPO SITS OF RS.14,17,900/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE CASH DEPOSITS IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT HE IS A TAXI DRIVER-CUM-TAXI BOOKING SERVICE P ROVIDER. THE ASSESSEE SOLD A CAR AND DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN THE BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.1,81,500/-. THE SALE LETTER OF THE CAR WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE SOLD HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND SIT UATED AT VILLAGE LOHARA, TEHSIL NIHAL SINGH WALA, DISTT. MOG A AND RECEIVED AMOUNTS OF RS.80,000/- AND RS.2,15,000/-, WHICH WERE ALSO DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED WAS ALSO FILED. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH RELEVANT INFORMATION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN SCHEDULE AIR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHERE THE CASH DEPOSITS MORE THAN RS.10 LACS ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED NET PROFIT OF RS.1,08,70 0/- OUT OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.3,50,000/- MENTIONED IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK INTO ACCOUNT TH E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SALE OF P ROPERTY, SALE OF CAR AND CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BUT NOTED 3 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION REGARDING BALA NCE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.7,54,400/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK. ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS.7,54,400/- WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME FACTS BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CALLED FOR, IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ALSO STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,15,800/- IS EXPLAINE D AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN BENEFIT OF RS.6,63, 500/- OUT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.14,17,900/- IN AXIS BANK IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, AT THE MOST, FU RTHER RS.90,900/- CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE BANK ACCO UNT WAS OPENED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS LATER ON CONVERTE D INTO JOINT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HIS SON SHRI HAR JEET SINGH ON 21.8.2006. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AS SESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AS PER SECTION 44AE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THE RETURN WAS FILED ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS FREQUENTLY DEPOSIT ED AND WITHDRAWN ON THE ADVICE OF TRAVEL AGENT AS SHRI HA RJEET SINGH WAS INTERESTED TO GO TO CANADA, WAS ALSO REJECTED. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION OF RS.7,02,100/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF SH RI HARJEET SINGH, SON OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT W AS 4 CONSIDERED AND 50% OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS UNDER SE CTION 69A OF THE ACT WAS CONSIDERED AND ADDITION OF RS.7, 08,950/- WAS MADE BUT ADDITION IN THAT CASE HAS BEEN DELETED AND IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS THE FIRST NAME HOLDER OF THE ACCOUNT AND SON OF THE ASSESSEE LATER ON JOINED , THEREFORE, ENTIRE ADDITION WAS DELETED IN THE CASE OF SHRI HA RJEET SINGH AND THE ADDITION IS CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN AXIS BANK A CCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.7,02,100/- WAS CONFIR MED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT BELONGS TO T HE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON SHRI HARJEET SINGH. THEREFORE , NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT BECAUSE ADMITTEDLY, THE B ANK ACCOUNT IN QUESTION WAS OPENED BY THE ASSESSEE IN M AY, 2005 IN HIS INDIVIDUAL NAME AND ONLY LATER ON THE NAME O F HIS SON WAS ADDED IN THIS ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF APPLYING FOR V ISA. FURTHER, SAME ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED IN THE HAND S OF SHRI HARJEET SINGH, THEREFORE, ENTIRE ADDITION SHALL HAV E TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE BEC AUSE THIS BANK ACCOUNT SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY. THE THEORY OF FREQUENT CASH DEPOSITS AND WIT HDRAWALS OF MONEY FOR THE PURPOSES OF OBTAINING VISA IN THE NAM E OF SHRI HARJEET SINGH IS NOT TENABLE BECAUSE THE DEPOSITS I N THE BANK 5 ACCOUNT SHALL HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED THROUGH COGENT A ND RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON RECORD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO EXPLAIN CASH D EPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED UNDER SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED. THIS PLEA IS OBJECTED T O BY THE LEARNED D.R. BECAUSE THIS PLEA WAS NEVER RAISED BEF ORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED D.R. BECAUSE THIS PLEA WAS NEVER RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. RATHER THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE PLEA OF FILI NG OF THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS AL SO FAILED TO EXPLAIN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW BECAUSE THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED MERELY ON ESTIMATE B ASIS BEING NO ACCOUNT CASE. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE AFTER THOUGH AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDE NCE ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LIGHT OF FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT I S CLEAR THAT WHATEVER EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, SUPPORT ED BY THE EVIDENCE, SUFFICIENT BENEFIT HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVE N BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE REST AMOUNT, NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FILED, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER BENEFIT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IT STANDS PROVED ON RECORD THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,02,100/-. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION SHALL HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED GIST OF CERTAIN JUDGMENTS IN WRI TING BUT 6 NONE OF THE DECISION IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, I DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ADDITION OF RS.7,02,100/- I S CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 3 RD MARCH, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH