SHRI ISHWAR PATEL,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, इंदौर �यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA Nos.937 & 938/Ind/2016 Assessment Years: 1997-98 & 1998-99

Shri Ishwar Patel Income Tax Officer Pithampur Vs. Dhar (Revenue) (Respondent ) PAN No.AGDPP – 0622Q

Revenue by Shri Ravi Sarda Respondent by Shri K.G Goyal Date of Hearing 18.01.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement 15.02.2018

ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM.

These appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to the A.Ys.

1997-98 and 1998-99 are directed against the consolidated order of

ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-22 (holding concurrent

jurisdiction of CIT(A)01, Indore, dated 16.6.2016 which is arising

out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 20.3.2002

framed by the ITO, Dhar.

were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for

the sake of convenience and brevity.

grounds :-

“Ground no. 1 :-

The learned CIT(A) has erred in approving action of A.O. in

correct prospective whereas the assessee has no income in

individual status and entire income is earned out of fund

received in partition of HUF and as such assessment in

question is liable to be annulled.

Ground No.2

The assessment of income from house property at

Rs.38,400/- in the status of Individual is invalid in law

and it is liable to be deleted.

Ground no. 3 :-

The assessment of income at Rs. 1,05,500/- is bad in law,

without supplying the papers relied, as assessee is not the

owner of deposits in individual capacity.

Ground no. 4 :-

The assessment of agriculture income out of Rs. 62,000/-

at Rs. 33,000/- as income from other sources is bad in law

and that too in individual status of the assessee.

Ground no. 5 :-

The entire assessment is bad in law and it is liable to be

quashed.”

In ITA No. 938/Ind/2016 the assessee has raised the following

grounds :-

Ground no. 1 :-

The learned CIT(A) has erred in approving action of A.O. in

correct prospective whereas the assessee has no income in

individual status and entire income is earned out of fund

received in partition of HUF and as such assessment in

question is liable to be annulled.

Ground No.2

The assessment of income from house property at

Rs.48,000/- in the status of Individual is invalid in law

and it is liable to be deleted.

Ground no. 3 :-

The assessment of income at Rs. 6,62,400/- is bad in law,

without supplying the papers relied, as assessee is not the

owner of deposits in individual capacity.

Ground no. 4 :-

The assessment of agriculture income out of Rs. 72,000/-

at Rs. 40,000/- as income from other sources is bad in law

and that too in individual status of the assessee.

Ground no. 5 :-

The entire assessment is bad in law and it is liable to be

quashed.”

need our adjudication :-

(i) Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in approving the action of

the AO assessing the income in the hands of the assessee

rather than in the status us HUF ?

(ii) The addition on account of income from house property.

(iii) The addition for undisclosed income in the form of cash

deposited at Rs. 1,05,500/- and Rs. 6,62,400/- for the A.Ys.

1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively.

(iv) Assessing the agriculture income at Rs.33,000/- and

Rs.40,000/- as against the agricultural income disclosed by

the assesee at Rs. 62,000/- and Rs. 72,000/- for the A.Ys.

1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively.

facts for the A.Y. 1997-98. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are 5

that the assessee is an Individual. On the basis of information

received by the AO relating to deposit of cash in the bank account,

notice under section 148 of the Act dated 18.1.2000 was issued and

duly served upon the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed the

return of income on 3.3.2000 disclosing income from house

property at Rs. 30,720/- and agricultural income at Rs. 65,000/-.

During the course of assessment proceedings, details were called

for by the AO towards the basis of showing house property income

which the assessee failed to submit. In the meantime, the learned

counsel for the assessee through letter dated 8.1.2002 submitted

that the income from agriculture may be calculated at Rs. 32,000/-

as against Rs. 62,000/- shown by the assessee in the return of

income. The learned AO also observed that the assessee has

deposited cash of Rs. 1,05,500/- in the bank account held with

State Bank of Indore. No reasonable explanation was put-forth.

The learned AO accordingly completed the assessment by

estimating the income from house property at Rs. 48,000/- making

addition for unexplained income under section 69 of the Act at

Rs.1,05,500/- and addition for income from other sources at

Rs.33,000/- on account of declaring excess figure of agricultural

income. The income was assessed at Rs.1,76,900/-.

CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before

the Tribunal.

submissions made before the lower authorities and also took us

through paper book running from page 1 to 71 and written

submissions placed on record. On the other hand, the learned

Departmental Representative supported the order of the learned

CIT(A).

placed before us and carefully gone through the documents.

source of income in the Individual capacity as the entire income

was earned out of the funds received on partition of HUF and

thereby questioning the validity of assessment.

very reason that the assessee is trying to connect the source of

alleged funds deposited during the year out of the compensation

received in 1984 through cheque on account of compensation

received by the HUF comprising the assessee and other family

member towards acquisition of land held jointly in the family

namely. In these circumstances, the plea of the learned counsel for

the assessee cannot be accepted that the source of income earned

during the year was out of the funds received ten years ago.

Accordingly, we dismiss this common ground no. 1 raised by the

assessee for both the years.

‘income from house property’ wherein the CIT(A) has confirmed the

income at Rs. 48,4000/- for both the A.Ys. 1997-98 and 1998-99 as

against Rs. 30,720/- and Rs. 38,400/- shown by the assessee. We

find that the assessee has shown income from house property in

the income tax return and the learned AO has estimated the income

at Rs. 48,000/- and Rs.60,000/- for the A.Ys. 1997-98 and 1998-

99 because the assessee could not place any documentary evidence

to support the basis of rental income. The ld. CIT(A) gave part relief

in the A.Y. 1998-99 thereby confirming the income from house

property at Rs. 48,000/- for both the years. We find no reason to

interfere with the findings of the learned CIT(A) and confirm the

same.

unexplained income of Rs. 1,05,500/- and Rs. 6,62,400/- in both

the years. The learned counsel for the assessee has pleaded that the

source of alleged cash deposited in the bank account is out of the

money received in partition of HUF as well as income from

agriculture which was kept in hand in the past. The submissions of

the assessee are general in nature and having no substantial

evidence to support the same. The learned counsel for the assessee

also took us through the chart showing peak cash credit which was

filed during the course of hearing placed at pages 72 to 75 of the

paper book. From perusal of these records as well as looking to the

fact that the matter is very old and relates to the A.Ys. 1997-98 and

1998-99, it will not be justified to restore the issue to the file of the

AO for carrying out verification of the peak credit working. We

agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee

that the addition should be made only for the peak cash credit and

not for the total cash deposited on various dates. It is not in

dispute that there have been regular cash withdrawals also before

the cash deposited.

and holds agricultural land since many years. One cannot deny the

fact that the assessee had accumulated some cash in hand earned

through agricultural operations. Looking to these practical aspects

as well as the factual matrix arising in the given facts and

circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee had an opening

cash balance of Rs. 1,51,000/- on account of past savings. This

opening balance will take care of all the alleged unexplained income

of Rs. 1,05,500/- for the A,.Y. 1997-98 and the same stands

deleted. However, for the A.Y. 1998-99 wherein the addition of

Rs.6,62,400/- has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A), we, after

going through the peak credit statement, are of the view that the

addition for unaccounted income should be sustained at

Rs.2,50,000/- and this will take care of the peak credit working as

well household withdrawals not shown by the assessee in the peak

credit working.

for the A.Y. 1998-98 it is partly allowed.

relating to estimation of agricultural income. We find that the

assessee disclosed Rs.62,000/- and Rs.72,000/- in the income tax

return. Thereafter, during the course of assessment proceedings,

these figures were revised to Rs.32,000/- for both the years. Even

after accepting these reduced figures of agricultural income, the

assessee again raised a ground before the learned CIT(A) but failed

to succeed for the A.Y. 1997-98 and partly succeeded for the A.Y.

1998-99. In these circumstances, where the assessee is himself not

clear about the quantum of agricultural income earned by him

during the year and as no details were maintained to support the

income, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the

learned CIT(A) estimating the agricultural income at Rs. 32,000/-

and Rs. 40,000/- for both the years respectively and thereby

confirming the addition under the head ‘income from other sources’

at Rs.30,000/- and Rs.32,000/- for both the years.

dismissed.

adjudication.

The order pronounced in the open Court on .02.2018.

Sd sd/-

( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �दनांक /Dated : 15 February, 2018 Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A) concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file.

By order Private Secretary/DDO, Indore 1. Date of dictation : 8.2.2018 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member : 9.2.2018 3. Date on which approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S: 10.1.2018 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the dictating Member for pronouncement: 5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S.: 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk: 7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk: 8. The date on which the file goes to the Assisstant Registrar for signature of the order. 9. Date of Despatch of the Order: