HADIBANDHU PRADHAN,ANGUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL, ANGUL

Shri P.K.Mishra P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee , ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is an ex-employee of Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd (MCL). It was the submission that the assessee was Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd (MCL). It was the submission that the assessee was Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd (MCL). It was the submission that the assessee was deriving pension to an extent of Rs.1,11,360/ deriving pension to an extent of Rs.1,11,360/- and bank interest and bank interest. It was the submission that the assessee retired during the assessment year 2012 the submission that the assessee retired during the assessment year 2012 the submission that the assessee retired during the assessment year 2012-

It was the submission that the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 65 days. It was the submission that the assessee was working as peon in MCL and was uneducated. It was only when the Assessing Officer enforced the demand on account of the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee by the ld CIT(A), he became aware of the dismissal of the appeal by the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that immediately after knowing the dismissal of the appeal, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. It was on this backdrop that there was delay of 65 days. It was the prayer that the delay in appeal be condoned.

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) had been posted on the portal and it was the duty of the assessee to follow up in regard to the result in respect of his appeal.

I have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the assessee is a retired peon and is an uneducated person. The fact that he is receiving pension amount of Rs.1,11,360/- itself shows that he would be barely eking out a living. There is no fallacy shown in respect of the reasons given for the delay in filing of the appeal. This being so, the delay of 65 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee had withdrawn Rs.10 lakhs in cash on 24.5.2016 and 18.6.2016 and Rs.5 lakhs had been P a g e 2 | 6 transferred to Shri Ajit Kumar Sahoo on 17.6.2016. It was the submission that the withdrawal in cash of an amount of Rs.10 lakhs itself was in 1000 and 500 notes. It was the submission that on 22.8.2016, the assessee had deposited Rs.4 lakhs in the bank account consisting of 1000 and 500 notes. On 11.11.2016, the assessee had deposited Rs.11 lakhs in 500 notes. It was the submission that as the assessee had deposited Rs.11 lakhs in demonetization currency, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained income of the assessee. It was the submission that this Rs.11 lakhs was deposited out of the withdrawal amount of Rs.15 lakhs . It was the submission that the assessee had withdrawn the money for the purpose of purchasing a land and as the transaction did not go through, money had also been given to assessee’s son Shri Subha Pradhan to hold till purchase of the land. It was the submission that in the meantime on account of demonetization of currency, the assessee was forced to deposit the money back in the bank account. It was the submission that the assessee had no other source of income and the money which has been received back from the son Shri Subha Pradhan was out of the withdrawal from the assessee’s bank account, therefore same is not liable to be treated as unexplained income of the assessee.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that admittedly Rs.10 lakhs have been withdrawn in the form of cash and Rs.5 lakhs was transferred to Shri Ajit Kumar Sahoo. It was the submission that Shri Ajit Kumar Sahoo is not the P a g e 3 | 6 son of the assessee. It was the further submission that what were withdrawn were 1000 notes. It was the submission that on 22.8.2016, Rs.4 lakhs had been deposited which consists of 1000 and 500 notes. Therefore, effectively, out of Rs.10 lakhs cash withdrawn, the assessee had already deposited Rs.4 lakhs and only balance of Rs.6 lakhs remained. It was the submission that Rs.11 lakhs had been deposited on 11.11.2016 in 500 notes, which was the demonetization currency. It was the submission that the assessee has not explained how 1000 notes changed to 500 notes. It was the submission that the money withdrawn had been utilized by the assessee in some other purposes and the unaccounted money had been brought into the bank account in the form of demonetization currency of 500 notes. It was the prayer that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

I have considered the rival submissions. It is an admitted fact that Rs.15 lakhs had been withdrawn in May and June, 2016. It is also an admitted fact that on 17.6.2016, Rs.5 lakhs had been paid to Shri Ajit Kumar Sahoo by transfer to SB account. If I am to consider the submissions made by ld Sr DR as correct, then admittedly Rs.4 lakhs deposited on 22.8.2016 consisting of 1000 notes and 500 notes and this could be considered as out of the earlier withdrawal amount. If I am to see the transaction made on 17.6.2016 and 18.6.2016 representing the bank transfer of Rs.5 lakhs and the amount withdrawn of Rs.5 lakhs

P a g e 4 | 6 alongwith the claim of the assessee that the assessee had attempted to purchase a land, one could draw the conclusion that there was an on- money transaction in the purchase of land as if there was withdrawal of Rs.5 lakhs in cash. The transaction admittedly has not gone through. Obviously, the assessee has received back the money, which represents the advance given on 17.6.2016 & 18.6.2016, need not be in the same demonetization currency. Thus, one cannot take the stand that same currency has to be deposited and if this presumption is considered, then obviously, the amount deposited by the assessee of Rs.11 lakhs on 11.11.2016 is out of the money withdrawn in May and June, 2016 by the assessee. There is no evidence that the assessee has any other source of income. This being so, the explanation given by the assessee cannot be discarded without any evidence. In these circumstances, I am of the view that Rs.11 lakhs deposited by the assessee is out of the amount withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account earlier. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) stand deleted.

There is another ground in regard to the addition representing the interest on the deposits from the bank account. No specific submissions were made in regard to the said addition. Ld AR has agreed that the income from the interest is the income of the assessee but as the assessee does not have taxable income, the addition is in fact only academic in nature.

I have considered the rival submission. As no specific submission has been made in regard to the addition representing the bank interest received by the assessee, same stands upheld. However, liberty is granted to the Assessing Officer to examine as to whether the TDS has to be deducted from the said interest income.

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed.