Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMAvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 923/JP/2017
ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A), Alwar dated 07/09/2017 for the A.Y. 2012-13 in the matter of order passed U/s 148/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).
In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for the addition made on account of cash found to be deposited in the bank account.
I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the addition of Rs.
2 ITA 923/JP/2017 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs ITO 33,50,000/- was made by the A.O. as undisclosed income, in respect of cash found to be deposited in his bank account which was jointly held with his wife. On getting information regarding cash deposited in the bank, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice U/s 148 of the Act. As per the reasons recorded, I found that the A.O. was justified in reopening the assessment in so far as there was sufficient reason to believe that there was escapement of income.
From the record, I found that the assessee has tried to explain deposit of cash out of the sale proceeds of plot of land and it was alleged that cash of Rs. 29.00 lacs were deposited on 29/02/2012 which was received as sale proceed of the land. I found that the A.O. has called the alleged buyer wherein he found that no cash was paid by the alleged buyer to the assessee. After recording the statement of buyer U/s 131 of the Act, the A.O. declined assessee’s contention of cash having deposited out of sale proceeds of plot. Nothing was produced before the Bench so as to persuade me to deviate from the findings recorded by the lower authorities. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the assessee’s contention regarding deposit of cash of Rs. 29.00 lacs out of the sale proceed of the plot of land.
3 ITA 923/JP/2017 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs ITO 5. I found that the assessee has also claimed sale of jewellery of his wife of Rs. 10,89,747/-. Copy of sale bill was also filed before the A.O.. It appears that the A.O. has not made full enquiry with regard to sale of jewellery in so far as the person owing the jewellery shop who purchased the jewellery had closed his shop and he died. However, on the basis of statement of wife of the buyer Raju Soni proprietor of M/s Raj Jewellery, Kanota, the A.O. did not accept assessee’s contention with regard to sale of wife’s jewellery. I found that the A.O. has not made proper enquiry with regard to actual sale, therefore, in all fairness, I restore the issue with regard to deposit of Rs. 10,89,747/- out of the sale proceeds of the jewellery alleged to be sold to M/s Raj Jewellers to the file of A.O. for deciding afresh after making proper verification.
I also found that out of cash alleged to be deposited a sum of Rs. 3,60,253/- was shown as past savings. The assessee is a pensioner retired from Government of Rajasthan as teacher after serving for than 30 years. Considering the age of the assessee vis a vis his earlier background, I found that this much of cash may be reasonably saved. Accordingly, I direct the A.O. to accept the deposit of Rs. 3,60,253/- in the bank account out of past savings.
4 ITA 923/JP/2017 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs ITO 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08th August, 2019
Sd/- ¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½ (RAMESH C SHARMA) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:-08th August, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, Dausa. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-Dausa. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 923/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत