SUDHIR KUMAR JHA,BOKARO STEEL CITY vs. ACIT OR DCIT, CIRCLE-3, BOKARO

Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue and Shri Anil Kumar Jha, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee.

It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is an employee of Steel Authority India Ltd. (SAIL), Bokaro Steel City during the relevant assessment year. It was the submission that the assessee had filed his return of income and in the course of the scrutiny assessment of the return it was noticed that the assessee had shown that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- from Shri Sunil Kumar Jha. When questioned, the assessee submitted that the amount was received from the brother out of the sale of land and agricultural income over a period of time spanning more than a decade. The assessee had also submitted a certificate dated 03.11.2019 from Shri Sunil Kumar Jha. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Assessing Officer did not believe the claim of gift and had treated the said amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee. The Ld. AR drew our attention to page 54 of the paper book, which is a copy of the certificate issued by Shri Sunil Kumar Jha on 20.11.2018 which contained the details of the sale of the land and reiterating the alleged gift of Rs.35,00,000/- the same reads as follows:

It was the submission that the assessee had also submitted the details of the receipt of the gift along with the dates and signed by Shri Sunil Kumar Jha. The same was shown at page 102 of the paper book which reads as follows:

It was the submission that the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of the source. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Hanuman Agarwal reported in 17 taxman 19 (Pat) wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Patna has categorically held that where the assessee has filed confirmatory letter showing the address and GIR No. of the creditor, the assessee has primarily discharged the primary onus that was on it and the onus shifted to the department. It was the submission that as the revenue has not been able to dislodge any of the evidence produced by the assessee the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.

In reply, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the source of the gift. It was the submission that the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the certificate issued by Shri Sunil Kumar Jha shows that it is claimed that his main source of income is agricultural income. He is substantially selling paddy and wheat in cash to get a better price. He has also sold paddy in 2012 to government agencies and has received payment through cheque. A perusal of the details of the land sold as has been provided by Shri Sunil Kumar Jha along with a certificate shows that the land was sold between 08.12.2010 and 19.12.2016. The certificate issued by Shri Sunil Kumar Jha says that he has given the money to his brother in cash till September, 2016 out of the cash generated from the sale of the land and agricultural income since he wanted the money to purchase house in Bokaro before retirement in 2017. The details of the gift which has also been extracted above clearly shows that the cash gifts have been made between January, 2016 and September, 2016. Shri Sunil Kumar Jha has not shown as to how he was holding this cash from the sale proceeds of the land nor has the assessee showed as to how he was holding this cash for such long periods of time. A perusal of the details of the sale of land shows that during 2016 being December, 2016 Shri Sunil Kumar Jha has sold land of nearly Rs. 12,00,000/- but the last date of gifting the cash gift to the assessee is September, 2016 and, therefore, this amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- would not be in any case available with Shri Sunil Kumar Jha for gifting to his brother. Thus, out of Rs.29,37,000/- Rs. 12,00,000/- is to be reduced. A further verification shows that land sold is between the years 2013 and 2016. How the said Shri Sunil Kumar Jha was holding this cash has not been proved from 2013 to 2016. Neither has it been shown as to how the assessee herein has been holding cash from January, 2016 till September, 2016. Even assuming the sale of paddy is considered these are transactions done with the government in 2012. No evidence has been produced by the assessee nor by Shri Sunil Kumar Jha to say that cash has been withdrawn from the Bank to make these gifts to the brother. Thus, merely other than giving the name of the assessee’s brother and a certificate from the brother no concrete evidence in any form i.e. substantiated by documentation has been provided by the assessee to explain the alleged gift of Rs.35,00,000/- from Shri Sunil Kumar Jha. For these reasons the case law relied on by the Ld. AR also does not apply. This being so, we find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and consequently, confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.