Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Narendra Singh, v. Income Tax Officer, Kalyanpur, Allahabad, U.P. Ward-1(3), Allahabad PAN:BUVPS2136P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri. S.K. Yogeshwar, Adv Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 14 02 2023 Date of pronouncement: 16 02 2023 O R D E R VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.10.2022 of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the authority below was not justified in treating the total bank deposit Rs. 10,85,000/- as Income of the appellant.
2. That the authority below was not justified is not accepting the affidavit filed by Sri Shyamji Singh and without any further clarification, the total Bank deposit has been added as Income of the appellant.
3. That the order passed by the authority below is unjust and harassing the petty contractor.”
3. The assessee stated to be a Labour Contractor and did not file any return of income as the income from the contract business was below the minimum taxable limit. The assessee was also not having PAN till the assessment year under consideration. The AO received the information regarding the Narendra Singh cash deposit in the saving bank account of the assessee of Rs. 10,85,000/- during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The AO issued the query letter dated 17.11.2015 seeking explanation from the assessee about the source of this deposit but there was no response to the said letter. The AO thereafter issued notice under section 148 on 31st March, 2016 by registered post. There was no compliance to the said notice. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) as well as notice under section 144 of Income Tax Act but those notices were also remained un-complied with. The AO, accordingly, proceeded to pass ex parte assessment order under section 144 by assessing the total income of Rs. 10,85,000/- being total amount deposited in the bank account. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and submitted that no notice was served upon the assessee and even the assessment order was served. Later, the assessee applied for certified copy which was supplied on 14th August, 2018 and consequentially, the appeal was filed before the CIT(A). This explained for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was accepted and the CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, on merits, the CIT(A) did not accept the explanation of the source of the deposits of the money in the bank account of the assessee being a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- was claimed as belongs to his brother Shri. Shyamji Singh, who wanted to purchase the land at Shankargarh but was not having bank account in that area. When the deal was not finalize on that day, he deposited his cash in the bank account of the assessee on 11.12.2008 and 26.12.2008. The assessee also claimed that the balance deposit was contract receipts of the assessee but could not produce any evidence in support of the said claim.
Narendra Singh Accordingly, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that out of Rs. 10,85,000/- deposited in the bank account of the assessee, a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- deposited by the brother of the assessee Shri. Shyamji Singh. He has further explained that after the acquisition of the land by NTPC, his brother wanted to purchase a land at Shankargarh but the deal was not finalized and therefore, the money was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. He has submitted that his brother has no bank account in Shankargarh and therefore, the money was deposited in the bank account of the assessee which was subsequently withdrawn and repaid to his brother. He has referred to the affidavits of the assessee as well as his brother regarding the confirmation of the said deposits of Rs. 6,30,000/-. The learned AR has further submitted that the remaining amount of Rs. 4,55,000/- was assessee’s labour contract business receipt and the income from the said receipt is below taxable limit. The learned AR has filed the bank statement alongwith the affidavits of the assessee and his brother and submitted that the various deposits and withdrawal details are reflected in the bank account statement to show that the deposits were subsequently withdrawn and paid to his brother. The AO has made the addition of the entire deposit without giving the credit of withdrawals. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that when the assessee has produced the confirmation from his brother, the same cannot be rejected without bringing any contrary fact and material on record. Thus, he has pleaded that the addition made by the AO may be deleted.