HUSAIN AHMAD,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), MUZAFFARNAGAR

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Muzaffarnagar dated 06.02.2018 pertaining to A.Y 2010-11.

In its reply dated 03.11.2017, the assessee explained that the total cash deposits have been made after collecting sums from persons who agreed to invest in share business in the form of a investor in pool. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish complete details, i.e., names, address, PAN, ITR, source of investment and bank accounts of the parties who have given their money for investment in shares.

Though the details were not furnished, but the persons were produced before the Assessing Officer who recorded their statements on 17.11.2017. The statements of Shri Mansab and Shri Mukarram are exhibited at page 4 of the assessment order. After recording the statements, the Assessing Officer observed that the persons could not remember the exact date of lending the money. The Assessing Officer once again asked the assessee to explain the sources of cash deposit in the Savings Bank account. On receiving no plausible reply, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 18,94,800/-.

The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success.

Before me, the ld. AR once again reiterated what has been stated before the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR further submitted that affidavits of all the five persons are placed in the paper book wherein all the five persons have confirmed the fact of having given money to the assessee. It is the say of the ld. AR that the assessee has successfully explained the sources of cash deposits in the Savings Bank account and, therefore, the addition should be deleted.

Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the CIT(A).

I have carefully considered rival submissions and the affidavits of the following five persons from whom the assessee has claimed to have received money for investment in shares:

A perusal of all the five affidavits shows that none of the deponents have mentioned the amount of money given by them to the assessee. Moreover, even the date of giving the money is not mentioned. Devoid of these facts, the affidavits lose their credibility. Shri Riazuddin works in Saudi Arabia. There is no detail as to when this person came to India and when he gave the money to the assessee. Shri Ujer Alam is an agriculturist. Shri Mukarram Ali is also working in Saudi Arabia and no details have been given about his visit to India. Shri Mansab works in Kuwait and again no details of his visit have been mentioned. Similar is the case of Shri Faiz Mohd who works in Saudi Arabia. The assessee has claimed that all the five persons have given Rs. 3.50 lakhs each but none of the five persons admitted the amount given to the assessee. In my considered opinion, the assessee has grossly failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. Even the bank account of the assessee shows that cash deposits have been made in tranches. If the assessee has received Rs. 3.50 lakhs each from the five individuals, then, the same amount should have been found to have been deposited in the bank account. But the deposits starting from 9th April with a sum of Rs. 1.15 lakhs and thereafter, amounts of Rs. 20,000/-, 40,000/- 30,000/-, 50,000/- were found to be deposited on various dates in successive months. This fact also does not support the claim of the assessee. Considering the facts of the case in totality, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings given by the CIT(A). Ground No. 3 stands dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 26.04.2019.