Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1151/JP/2019
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.11.2018 of ld. CIT (A), Kota for the assessment year 2010-11. There is a delay of 225 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by affidavit of the assessee. 2. We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R on condonation of delay. The assessee has explained the cause of delay as he was seeking the information from the department regarding his return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, however, the department has not provided the relevant information. In this process the assessee has also filed an appeal under Right to Information Act but could not succeed. Thus the assessee has submitted that the time consumed in the process of gathering the information from the department under RTI has caused the delay in filing the present appeal. It is also pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances which are beyond the control of the assessee.
Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the contents of the application for condonation of delay as well as affidavit, we are satisfied that the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Further we find that there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee was to take any advantage of filing the present appeal but due to the advise of the Authorized Representative, the assessee was busy in fighting with the department for seeking information relating to his return of income and thereby the assessee wanted to reduce the interest levied under section 234A of the IT Act.
Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we condone the delay of 225 days in filing the present appeal.
4. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-
“ 1. That the CIT (A) Kota erred in law and fact while allowing the Appeal of the assessee partly vide order dated 2.11.18.
That the CIT (A) Kota has ignored the explanation rendered by the assessee in respect of the amount deposited in bank account.
3. That the authorities below without producing any cogent evidence have erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs. 6,09760/- being the peak amount of deposit in the bank account as unexplained investment.
That the order passed by the authorities and the proceedings drawn are barred by time, as provided in the IT Act, below is bad in law and against the facts of the case.
That the CIT (A) Kota failed to appreciate that the account did not had much of debit and credit entries in the bank account.
6. That the CIT (A) Kota failed to appreciate that the deposits were out of withdrawal made from the account and had nexus.
7. That any other relief or reliefs deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.
8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
5. The only issue arises in this appeal of the assessee is regarding the addition made by the AO on account of deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has explained the source of deposits made in the bank account as per his reply vide letter dated 28th September, 2018 reproduced by the ld. CIT (A) in para 5 of the impugned order. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the AO has made the addition of the entire deposits which was restricted by the ld. CIT (A) to Rs. 6,09,756/- after giving the benefit of withdrawals made in between. The ld. A/R has thus contended that even when the assessee has produced the proof of agricultural income and land holding as well as receipts from the sale of goods in medical shop, then the entire deposits cannot be held as unexplained investment in the shape of deposits in the bank.
On the other hand, the ld. D/R has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has already allowed the benefit of withdrawals made by the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee has explained the source of deposits in the bank account as reproduced by the ld. CIT (A) at page 3 as under :-
Date Amount Description 27.11.2009 Rs. 1,35,000 Deposit Agriculture income(ownership proof of agriculture land is attached herewith 22.12.2009 Rs. 54,000 Deposit Receipt from sale of goods in medical shop 22.01.2010 Rs. 4,00,000 Deposit Advance received for sale of house at Pachpahad, Distt. Jhalawar. 13.02.2010 Rs. 4,55,000 Withdrawal For purchase of new house 03.03.2010 Rs. 4,40,000 Deposit Purchasing of new house is cancelled; hence withdrew amount deposited again 18.03.2010 Rs. 6,00,000 Withdrawal Sale of house is also postponed and amount is returned back in cash.
It is apparent from these details of various deposits and withdrawals that the deposits made after 13.02.2010 is less than withdrawals made by the assessee on the said date. It is also pertinent to note that there is only 20 days difference from the withdrawals from the bank account of Rs. 4,55,000/- on 13.02.2010 and a deposit of Rs. 4,40,000/- on 03.03.2010. Therefore, the source of the deposit made on 03.03.2010 is clearly explained by the said withdrawal on the prior date. As regards the amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- on account of agricultural income, when the assessee has produced the land holding documentary evidence, then the agricultural income being source of deposit cannot be denied in toto. The ld. CIT (A) has not considered this factual aspect of land holding of the assessee and consequently the agricultural income of the assessee as claimed. Further, the authorities has not disputed that the assessee has also earned some income from the sale of goods in 5 Shri Kamruddin Mansoori, Jhalawar. the medical shop and claimed only Rs. 54,000/- on that account as deposit in the bank account. Therefore, the source of agricultural income and receipts from sale of goods in the medical shop are very reasonable being Rs. 1,35,000/- and Rs. 54,000/- respectively. Hence, we find that to the extent of these two amounts no addition is called for. The only balance amount is the deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- made on 22nd January, 2010. Since the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the said deposit, therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is restricted to Rs. 4,00,000/- only.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.