Bhanwar Singh Rathore , Pali V. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jodhpur

MA 4/JODH/2021

AI Insights

This case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by Shri Bhanwar Singh Rathore against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, which had earlier dismissed his appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 19,06,200 to his income for the assessment year 2012-13. The addition was made on the grounds that the cash deposits in his bank account were unexplained. The assessee contended that these deposits were from personal drawings and earlier withdrawals, supported by a cash flow statement and other documents. However, both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a chronological and plausible link between the withdrawals and the deposits. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, affirming the earlier decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122677 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Champa Lal Chopra vs. State of Rajasthan [257 ITR 74 (Raj)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH ‘DB’: JODHPUR (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.04/JODH/2021 (Arising out of Cross Objection No.02/JODH/2020) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 Shri Bhanwar Singh Rathore Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Village-Mandali, Nemawas, Pali Rajsthan-306 401 PAN-ABEPR 9925L Vs. ACIT Central Circle-2 Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Rajendra Jain, Advocate Respondent by Mr. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2023 ORDER PER Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM: This Miscellaneous Application (‘MA’, for short) is filed by the assessee in respect of order dated 21/12/2020 while disposing off the ground of the Cross Objection for AY 2012-13 passed by 2 MA No.04 /Jodh/2021 Bhanwar Singh Rathore vs. ACIT Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’, for short) in assessee’s appeal vide ITA No.347/Jodh/2019. 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Miscellaneous Application is reproduced herein below for the sake of brevity and ready reference: “Hon'ble Sirs, The humble petition u/s 254(2) of LT. Act 1961 for rectification of mistake crept in the appellate order dated 21/12/2020 while disposing off the ground to appeal of the cross objection for AY 2012-13, relevant to addition of 19,06.200/- The mistake crept is apparent on the face of record and requires rectification is on the following facts & grounds: - 1] That aggrieved with the orders passed by Id CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur for the assessment year 2012-13 the department had filed an appeal and the assessee had filed cross objection before the Hon'ble Tribunal. In the cross objection the appellant company had raised the ground of appeal No. 1 to 3 reads as under: - 1. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs.19.06,200 in respect of cash deposits in bank account. 2. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) erred in not considering the explanation and supporting evidence which proves beyond doubts that cash deposits in bank account out of earlier withdrawals of bank account. 3. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition as the cash deposits in bank account are dully Verifiable from cash book and cash flow statement furnished by assessee." 3 MA No.04 /Jodh/2021 Bhanwar Singh Rathore vs. ACIT 2] That the assessee had furnished cash flow statement, bank statement and submission which proves beyond doubts that out of taxable disclosed sources the assessee had deposited such cash in bank account which are part of paper book. 3] While passing the order the Hon'ble Bench had dismissed the ground raised in cross objection by the assessee. The relevant finding recorded by the Hon'ble Bench reads as under:- (Para 9 Page 10 & 11 of order). 7. Cash deposit in ICICI Bank 7.1 The assessee was found to have deposited aggregate cash of Rs.19.06 Lacs in 2 Bank accounts maintained with ICICI Bank. The same were stated to be sourced out of personal drawings. However, in the absence of documentary evidences, the plea was rejected and the amount was added to the income of the assessee. 7.2 During appellate proceedings, the assessee sought to explain the source of deposit, however, the same could not find favor with Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the additions by observing as under:- 5.2. I have considered the assessment order, appellant's submissions and documents on record. The AR of the appellant stated that the cash deposit was actually the amount which had been withdrawn by the appellant regularly from his bank account. On perusal of bank statements filed by the appellant, it is observed that the assessee had not withdrawn any identical amount which was re-deposited to bank account. In some instances, it is apparent from the bank statement that the appellant had been crediting his account by way of transfer, on the same date or on following dates, some amounts were being withdrawn by him in cash. It is way beyond comprehension as to why the appellant being a prudent businessman, would transfer the amounts to his account and then; withdraw the same amount, keep that amount at home for crediting the same again by way of cash! No plausible link, whatsoever, could be established between the cash withdrawn and the cash deposited. The appellant had been depositing cash being receipts from cable business, cess collection and agricultural activities to the bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank. Therefore the cash deposited by the appellant in the ICICI bank could not be either his business receipts or agricultural receipts. Further, the appellant failed to establish the date on which the amounts were withdrawn from the appellant's ICICI bank account and date of deposit in same account of assessee have chronologically progressive linkage of events. In absence of this, the appellant's claim is found incorrect that amount so withdrawn 4 MA No.04 /Jodh/2021 Bhanwar Singh Rathore vs. ACIT were utilized in re-depositing in the same bank. Thus, the source of cash deposited by the appellant remains unexplained. Therefore, the AO's action of treating cash deposit within the definition of unexplained cash deposited in the bank account is hereby upheld. Accordingly, it is held that the AO rightly added Rs.19,06,200/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961. The appellant fails on this ground. The ground raised by the appellant regarding this issue is, hereby, dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 8. After perusal of impugned order as extracted in preceding paragraph, we find that the assessee miserably failed to prove the source of deposit in this bank account. No plausible link, whatsoever, could be established between the cash withdrawn and the cash deposited. All the business transactions were being carried out through other bank and the assessee failed to establish chronologically progressive linkage of events. There is no plausible material on record to disturb these factual findings. Therefore, the impugned order, on this issue, would not warrant any interference on our part. The ground thus raised by the assessee stand dismissed. 4] That finding of the Ld. CIT(A) was erroneously uphold by the Hon'ble Bench as the assessee had furnished day to day cash flow statement in which the position of cash received and cash deposited in the bank account are available on record of authority below as well as before the Hon'ble Bench. Further also the finding so recorded is a mistake apparent on the face of record as the appellant challenged the finding of the CIT(A) and invite the attention of the Hon'ble Bench towards the written submission and cash flow statement etc which is part of paper book which shows the assessee had sufficient cash in hand which was deposited in the bank account. It is further submitted the source of cash are duly recorded and supported from the evidence and disclosed sources and as such the addition made by the Id AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is erroneous and accordingly requested to delete the addition sustained by the CIT(A). 5] That in the case of Champa Lal Chopra vs. State of Rajasthan [257 ITR 74 (Raj)] Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan held that: “7. A reading of sub-s. (2) of s. 254 of the Act makes it clear that its scope and ambit is limited. It restricts to rectify the mistakes apparent from the record. Thus, in the normal course, the power of rectification cannot be extended for recalling the entire order, obviously it would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. However, in a given case where the factual mistake is so apparent that it becomes 5 MA No.04 /Jodh/2021 Bhanwar Singh Rathore vs. ACIT necessary to correct the same, the Tribunal would be justified in not only correcting the said mistake by way of rectification but if the judgment has proceeded on the basis of that fact, it would be justified in recalling such order and posting for hearing." In light of above the decision rendered in CO No.18/Jodh/2019 (Arising out of TA No. 186/Jodh/2018) contains mistakes which are apparently on its face and requires to be rectified by passing an appropriate order u/s 254(2).” 3. We also gone through the para-8 of the order which read as under: “8. After perusal of impugned order as extracted in preceding paragraph, we find that the assessee miserably failed to prove the source of deposit in this bank account. No plausible link, whatsoever, could be established between the cash withdrawn and the cash deposited. All the business transactions were being carried out through other bank and the assessee failed to establish chronologically progressive linkage of events. There is no plausible material on record to disturb these factual findings. Therefore, the impugned order, on this issue, would not warrant any interference on our part. The ground thus raised by the assessee stand dismissed.” 4. On going through the facts, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal has arrived at conscious decision in confirming the action of the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to the cash withdrawal and cash deposits. Since, the matter do not fall under the purview of the provisions of section 254(2) in Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 6 MA No.04 /Jodh/2021 Bhanwar Singh Rathore vs. ACIT 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 th October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:27/10/2023 PK/Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR