Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI
Before: Shri S.S, Godara
आदेश /O R D E R These assessee’s two appeals for assessment year 2013-14, arise against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Ranchi’s separate orders both dated 16-03- 2018 passed in case Nos. CIT(A), Ranchi/10580/2016-17 and CIT(A), Ranchi/10606/2016-17, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.
Heard the learned DR. Case files perused.
Case called twice none appears at the assessee’s behest. I therefore proceed ex parte against the assessee. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.
ITA Nos. 191 & 192/Ran/18 Ajit Kaur Page 2 4. It emerges at the outset that the assessee herself in former and legal heir of the tax payer of late Sardar Pratap Singh. The CIT(A)’s identical findings upheld the Assessing Officer’s action adding cash deposits of Rs. 5 lakhs each reads as follows:- [ 5 ]The appellant stated that a development agreement dated 25.04.2014 was signed with M/s. Raj Construction & Developers wherein it was mentioned that Rs.52,00,0001- was paid to the four vendors namely Sardar Pratap Singh, Smt. Ajit Kaur, Sardar Harmeet Singh, Sardar Ramjeet Singh, amounting Rs.52 lakhs of which Rs.13,00,000/- pertained to each party. Further it was mentioned in the deed that the these parties earlier entered into development agreement in August 2012 with "Singh Construction", Swam Villa, Niwaranpur, Chutia, Ranchi for construction of the building wherein advances were paid to the parties. It was further mentioned in the deed that Singh Construction would enter into separate agreement with the owners for the chedule of refund and other terms.
[5.1] The appellant further stated that Smt. Ajit Kaur and Sardar Pratap Singh had jointly received Rs.36,00.0001- from M/s. Singh Construction which was utilized for purchase of property vide deed No. 8725' dated 01.07.2012. Rs.26,00,000/- was credited in the bank account of assessee of Corporation Bank A/c. No.0457/SB/01/004137 on 04.07.2012 and Rs.10,00,0001- in cash on 04.07.2012. It is further mentioned in the deed that Singh Construction will enter into separate agreement with the owners for the schedule of refund and other terms.
[5.2] The Ld. Assessing Officer has stated that he had deputed an Inspector attached to his office to conduct enquiry with respect of payment received from Singh Construction. The Ld. Assessing Officer has noted that the Inspector of Income tax in his report submitted that the builder has paid Rs.52,00,000/- to the parties as mentioned in the deed of which Rs.26.00,000/- pertained to Srr.t. Ajit Kaur & Sardar Pratap Singh. The Inspector of Income-tax gathered agreement between Sardar Pratap Singh, Smt. Ajit Kaur, Sardar Harmeet Singh, Sardar Ramjeet Singh and M/s. Singh Construction containing M/s. Singh Construction agreed to get back their advance amount from the first party members amounting to Rs.52,00,000/-. Henceforth, the appellant was showcaused to explain the source of Rs.10,00,000/-. The appellant in his submission stated that Rs.5,00.000/- pertained to Sri Sardar Pratap Singh & ~5,00,0001- pertained to her. Hence Rs.5 lakhs was added to the income of the appellant as unexplained cash credit.
[5.3] I have considered the submissions of the appellant and have perused the assessment order. Since all the grounds are on common issue, they are taken up for disposal together. It is noted that the appellant and three other members viz Sardar Pratap Singh Jeet. Sri Harmeet Singh and Sri
ITA Nos. 191 & 192/Ran/18 Ajit Kaur Page 3 Rajmeet Singh alongwith Sri Arun Kumar purchased a land admeasuing 13 kaihas out which the appellants and the share of Sardar Pratap Singh Ject, Sri Harmeet Singh and Sri Rajmeet Singh was 2.5 kathas while Sri Arun Kumar purchased 3 kathas for a total cost of Rs.1 ,26,00,000/-. Out of the above, Rs.25,00,000/-- was paid by Sri Arun Kumar and the balance Rs.1,01,00,000/- was paid by the appellant in the following manner: -
Name Total payment From Singh Estate Cash (Rs.) (Rs.) Builder (Rs.) Sardar Pratap 36,00,000/- 26,00,000/- 10,00,000/- Singh Smt. Ajit (Rs5,00,000/- Singh each) Harmeet Singh 33,00,000/- 14,00,000/- 19,00,000/- Rajmeet Singh 32,00,000/- 13,00,000/- 19,00,000/-
[5.4] With regard to the cash deposits made in the bank account the appellant, during the course of the appellate proceedings stated that she had raised cash loans from friends and relatives. The appellant stated that the land in question was a disputed land for which suit proceedings were going on for the last 35 to 40 years with Birla Institute of Technology, Meshra (BIT Meshra). Vide resolution land was offered to the appellant and three other co-owners ( supra). The appellant and other three co- owners entered into an agreement with Singh Estate Builders who paid Rs. 52,00,000/-. Balance amount of Rs.48,00,000/- was raised in cash by the appellant and the three co-owners.
[5.5] I find that the appellant, at the time of assessment proceedings was not able to identify the source of cash deposits in the bank account. Even during the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellant could not establish the source of cash. Though it was claimed that the cash was arrangedfromfriendsandrelatives,no identity/creditworthiness/genuineness was proved. There is no iota of evidence to show that the amount of cash deposit was explained cash loans from friends and relatives.
[5.6] In cases where the assessee discharges the initial onus of establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the credit provider and the genuineness of the transaction. be it one of loan or subscribing to share capital. the onus shifts to the revenue to show the contrary. Where. for instance. an assessee furnishes the complete details of the entity like its certificate of incorporation, PAN number, income tax returns, bank accounts, names and addresses of the directors and so on, the Courts have insisted on the Assessing Officer to make a proper enquiry to examine the identity and creditworthiness of such companies and the genuineness of the transactions in question. Where the Assessing Officer fails to make such an enquiry, a Court might delete the additions made by the Assessing
ITA Nos. 191 & 192/Ran/18 Ajit Kaur Page 4 Officer. The instant case, however, is of a different nature. No evidence has been provided by the appellant. Under the circumstances, it held that the Ld. Assessing Officer rightly taxed the amount as income of the appellant. Grounds of appeal are dismissed”.
It is thus clear that the assessee herein has failed to explain source of impugned cash deposits of Rs. 5,00,000/- each in support of her plea that the impugned sum had come from her friends and relatives. There is no even a single name of such friend and relative submitted either in assessment or in lower appellate proceedings. I therefore find no reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in both the cases.
These two Assessee’s appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced on 8/4/19.
Sd/- (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member *PP/Sr.PS Dated/ �दनांकः- 8/04/2019 रांची आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-Smt. Ajit Kaur C/o D.P.Paul,C.A, 718 Nabin Mitra Road, Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi-834001. 2. ��यथ�/Respondent-ITO Ward-1(1), 4th Floor, Central Revenue Building, Annex Building, 5A Main Road, Ranchi-834001. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण रांची / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
Sr. Private Secretary/P.S ITAT Ranchi