GANESH LAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1025/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Shri Ganesh Lal Kumawat The ITO Vs. 879, Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road Ward- 2(2) Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALZPK 3268 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri S.S. Shekhawat, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Shri R.A. Verma, Addl CIT-. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 17/01/2017 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 25/01/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 27-10-2016 for the assessment year 2008-09 raising therein following ground:- ‘’The AO made the addition of Rs. 8.50 lacs ignoring the (i) genuine credit entry through bank A/c (ii) submission of confirmation letter by Shri Gajendra Prasad Lohia and (iii) PAN card of Shri Lohia against the provision of I.T. Act..’’

2 ITA No. 1025/JP/2016 Shri Ganesh Lal Kumawat vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Jaipur . 2.1 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee, the facts as emerges from

the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:-

3.3.2 Determination:

(i) The brief facts of the case are that a sum of Rs. 8.50 lacs was credited in the bank account of the appellant in 18-09-207 maintained with PNB, New Sanganer, Jaipur. The AO required the appellant to explain the source of the said amount but no explanation was furnished. The AO also enquired from the bank of the appellant but of no avail and finally the AO made an addition of Rs. 8.50 lacs u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money.

(ii) During appellate proceedings, it was submitted by the appellant that the said amount was paid by Shri Gajendra Prashad for contract work and the appellant filed confirmation, copy of PAN card and driving license of Shri Gajendra Prasad as an additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and the same were admitted as an additional evidence as these goes to the root of the matter.

(iii) The above additional evidences were forwarded to the AO for its comments and making necessary enquiries. In order to verify the claim of the appellant, the AO issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to Shri Gajendra Prashad which was duly served upon him requiring him to attend the proceedings before AO alongwith copy of his relevant bank statement and the copy of his ITR for the A.Y. 2008-09. However, on the date fixed for hearing, no compliance was made before the AO. Thus it is evident that the appellant through proved the identity of Shri Gajendra Prashad, it failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of Shri Gajendra Prashad. It may be mentioned that the burden is on the appellant to explain the source of money credited in its bank account and initially, it discharged the burden by filing confirmation and PAN of Shri Gajendra Prashad and the onus now shifted to the AO. The AO issued summon u/s 131

3 ITA No. 1025/JP/2016 Shri Ganesh Lal Kumawat vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Jaipur . of the Act but no compliance was made and this fact was brought to the notice of the appellant by providing a copy of the remand report of the AO and now the burden to prove the transaction under consideration was again shifted to the appellant, which it failed to discharge.

(iv) It is therefore, in view of the above discussion held that since the appellant failed to prove the deposit of a sum of Rs. 8.50 lacs in its bank account, the AO was justified in making addition of Rs. 8.50 lacs to the income of the appellant and hence the same is hereby sustained. Thus this ground of appeal is hereby rejected.’’

2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the prayed that lower

authorities have erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8.50 lacs u/s 69A

of the Act in the hands of the assessee for which the ld. AR of the

assessee filed the written submission alongwith necessary details relating

to the amount of Rs. 8.50 lacs.

2.3 The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

2.4 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials

available on record. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO

noticed from the bank statement of the assessee that a sum of Rs. 8.50

lacs was credited in his bank account on 18-09-2007 for which the AO

required the assessee to furnish the source of amount credited in his bank

account during the year under consideration. It is noted from the

assessment order that the assessee had filed reply on 8-2-2016 stating

4 ITA No. 1025/JP/2016 Shri Ganesh Lal Kumawat vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Jaipur . therein that ‘’Rs. 8.50 lacs were credited through cheque no. 726704.

According to the AO, the source of amount was not explained by the

assessee. The AO therefore, sent a letter dated 23-02-2016 to the Branch

Manger, PNB, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur and asked as under:-

‘’The appellant in the above mentioned case are pending with the undersigned. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed his bank statement of saving bank account no. 4087000100024990 maintained with your bank. On perusal of the account, it is noticed that the amount of Rs. 8.50,000/- has been credited in the account of the assessee on 18-09-2007 vide cheque no. 726704. The amount was credited from the cheque received of the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Madrampura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. You are requested to please furnish the account No. name of the person from whom cheque was credited in account of the assessee. It is also requested to please provide the copy of cheque credited in the account.

The above information is called for u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act. It is requested to kindly file information within 3 days of receipt of this letter. Please note that failure in furnishing of information within time allowed may attract penal provision u/s 272A(2)© of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.’’

The AO also sent various letters to the bank but no reply relating the

amount of Rs. 8.50 lacs credited in the account of the assessee was sent to

the AO by the bank. According to the AO, the assessee has not furnished

the source of amounts so credited in his account. Therefore, the AO had

no option except to add the amount of Rs. 8.50 lacs u/s 69A of the Act on

5 ITA No. 1025/JP/2016 Shri Ganesh Lal Kumawat vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Jaipur . account of unexplained money credited in the bank account of the

assessee. Therefore, the AO added Rs. 8.50 lacs to the total income of the

assessee which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in first appeal. In

appeal before this Bench, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the

assessee is a wage contractor and he performs the work of construction of

the house for which he filed a copy of affidavit signed by the assessee

indicating therein the work he performed at different places (page 26 of

assessee's paper book). Further the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that

the assessee had performed the construction job in the house of Shri

Gajendra Prasad Lohiya r/o K-100, Kisan Nagar, Shyam Nagar,Ajmer

Road, Jaipur who had paid Rs. 8.50 lacs vide cheque no. 726704 and Shri

Gajendra Prasad gave a confirmation letter (page 27 assessee's paper

book). It is also noted that the Shri Gajendra Prasad had submitted his

PAN AACPL 9538 R to this effect (page 28 of assessee's paper book).

Further it is noted from the Punjab National bank statement in the case of

the assessee that on 18-09-2007 a cheque bearing no. 726704 amounting

to Rs. 8.50 lacs was deposited in his account and also credited in his

account. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is

noted that these three ingredients like identity, creditworthiness and

genuineness of the transactions are fulfilled in the case of the assessee as

6 ITA No. 1025/JP/2016 Shri Ganesh Lal Kumawat vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Jaipur . Shri Gajendra Prasad had confirmed the payment of Rs. 8.50 lacs to the assessee vide cheque no.726704 on 18-09-2007 against completion of construction work of his house. Hence in such a situation, addition of Rs. 8.50 lacs confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act is directed to be deleted. Thus the solitary ground of the assessee is allowed. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25 /01/2017

Sd/- ¼HkkxpUn½ (Bhagchand) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25 /01/ 2017 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Ganesh Lal Kumawat, Jaipur izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward – 2 (2), Jaipur 2. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@ CIT(A). 3. 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.1025/JP/2016) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत