SHRI SITARAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL,,UNJHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, PATAN

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad, vide Appeal No. CIT(A)/GNR/413/2013-14 dtd. 22/01/2015 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07.

ITA No.861/Ahd/2015 Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 2 - 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and deleted the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer as it involved gift received from relatives who had income from agricultural produce to establish their credit worthiness as well as loans received from relatives and friends who were produced before the Learned Assessing Officer and the amounts lent by each one was well within their means of A earnings.” 3. The relevant facts as culled out from the materials on record are as under:- In this case, the appellant is an individual having salary income and agriculture income. The assessee has below taxable income and not filed return of income for the year. Through annual information return, information received that appellant has made cash deposits amounting to Rs.18,48,730/- in bank accounts and case was re-opened based on the information, notice u/s.148 of the Act, was issued on 28/03/2013 and assessment was finalized u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act assessing the total income of the appellant at Rs.18,49,305/- vide order dated 27/12/2013. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessing officer asked the appellant to submit the source of said cash Deposit transactions with the bank by notice dated 29/11/2013, but assessee did not appear before the assessing officer and could not submit any document in support of its contention. Therefore, assessing officer made the addition of Rs.18,49,305/- as unexplained cash credit.

ITA No.861/Ahd/2015 Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 3 - proceedings. Ld. CIT(A) on additional evidence sought remand report from ld. AO and decided the matter. Appeal was dismiss by ld. CIT(A).

In the remand report, AO mentioned that gift from relatives of Rs.17,00,000/- and borrowing from friends and relatives of Rs.1,50,400/- cannot be accepted as depositors are mostly labourers working in APMC market and appellant has proved the paying capacity of such borrowings. Appellant could not prove such borrowings. It is also a fact, that they have not been maintaining any accounts and their statements were recorded on oath. The contention of the appellant that the borrowings had been repaid to them is baseless and made up story and an afterthought. Further, the contention of the appellant that the donors had confirmed on oath in their statements that they had given the gift out of agricultural income is also doubtful in the absence of documentary evidences. To prove source of such gift no evidences have been produced before the

ITA No.861/Ahd/2015 Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 4 - AO either during the assessment proceedings or remand proceedings. It was a claim of the appellant that the source of such gifts were from agriculture income and pass savings of the donors but appellant failed to produce any bank statement to prove that gift was given from past savings. Appellant has been failed to produce either before the authorities below or before us that sale of agriculture produced receipts and bills etc. in support of his contention and not even a single transaction have been entered through bank. A statement of Shri Krashan Naran Kaladiya S/o Shri Naran Kaladiya was recorded by the AO u/s.131 of the I.T. Act at Page No.31 and 32, he stated that he owned 14 Bigha agriculture land and his total crops was 500 Mann (1 Mann = 20Kg) and 500 mann peanuts produce from agriculture land. We are just fail to understand how this much of land can produce such a huge crop. It is a matter of research for the Agriculture Scientist as well. This statement cannot be relied upon and in support of its contention he has not produced any certificate from the agriculture department and when he was specifically asked whether he has maintaining any record then in reply he stated that he does not have any documentary evidence and moreover he has not maintaining any account of agriculture produce and bank account. He further stated that he does not have any gift deed when he gifted the amount to the relatives. So in our considered opinion, appellant has been failed to prove his case as he has not maintaining any bank account nor his relatives and friends are maintaining any bank account either they are labourers or farmers. Therefore, there credit worthiness is in doubt.

ITA No.861/Ahd/2015 Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 5 - 6. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the lower authorities. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal of the assessee.