Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH - ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI
This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) Aligarh dated 22nd December,2016 for asstt. Year 2009-10 on the following grounds :-
1. “That the AO is in error in not considering the sale of property was jointly sold by the assessee along with his brother for sum of Rs. 11,51,700/- and deposit in bank to purchase goods, for the marriage of two daughter therefore addition of Rs. 7,28,400/- is without any basis and CIT(A) is in error to ignore the same.
2. That the AO has not consider bank withdrawal and considered deposits entries only. Therefore AO as well as CIT(A) both are in error in making and confirm the addition of Rs. 7,28,400/-.”
I have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the findings of the authorities below.
Briefly the facts of the case are that as per AIR information received by revenue department, assessee has deposited cash in his bank account in assessment year under appeal totaling to Rs. 17,75,600/-. The explanation of assessee was called for regarding cash deposit. In absence of satisfactory explanation, re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated. It was gathered from the statement of bank account maintained by assessee for the year under consideration that cash deposits had been made by the assessee on various dates during the entire year. The assessee was directed to explain source of the cash deposit and to furnish details of total land holding alongwith proof thereof , explain the source of the cash deposits / other credit entries reflected in the saving bank account and purpose of withdrawal, note on agricultural income derived by assessee and his family members and explain modus operandi of the business income.
The assessee filed written submission before AO in which explained that assesses are four brothers namely Mr. Sajid Ali, Mr. Naisr Ali, Mr. Amir Ahmed and Mr. Rashid Ali who are doing agricultural activities and has sufficient agricultural holding. On 8.8.2008 the marriage of two daughters of brother of assessee Mr. Naisr Ali were settled and all family members contributed in the marriage to their satisfaction. However for the purpose of safety Rs. 17,00,000/- cash was deposited in the account of assessee on different dates in the bank account of assessee which was withdrawn from time to time for marriage purposes. All the brothers of assessee filed the affidavits and also appeared before AO. Further in agricultural land liptus and popular tree were grown which was sold in Meerut. Out of which total amount of Rs. 11,51,700/- was received. The assessee was also doing commission business of dealing in generic medicines. The assessee was further directed to file source of amount deposited in the bank account.
Assessee further reiterated that cash in the bank was deposited by his three real brothers who have contributed about Rs. 15,00,000/- which was mainly out of agricultural income and other agricultural related work. Details of the same were explained. Credit entries were also explained. Assessee further explained there was debit entry of Rs. 10,00,000/- in his account in the name of Smt. Saroj Saxena which was stated to be on account of agreement to sale purchase of a residential house at Shastri Nagar, Meerut for which payment was already received by the assessee and as per final agreement payment was made to Smt.
Saroj Saxena. AO considering the reply of the assessee in totalilty noted that there are total credit entries of Rs. 21,59,600/- out of which balance account of Rs. 7,28,400/- is not connected to the collective income as claimed by the assessee and his brothers during the course of assessment proceedings. The land holdings of the assessee’s family was not such to explain the bank deposits. Therefore the amount of Rs. 7,28,400/- was considered as accretion of cash appearing in the bank account of the assessee and which has been utilized out of unexplained income during the previous year and therefore added u/s 69A of the I.T.
Act. The addition of Rs. 7,28,400/- was thus made to the income of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) on the same reasoning confirmed the addition.
After considering rival submissions, I do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of the authorities below in making and confirming the addition. Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Kavita Verma vs. ITO dated 15th March, 2016 in which matter in issue was set aside to the file of AO for deciding the issue afresh after verifying the facts. Ld. Counsel for assessee was not able to explain how this judgment will help the assessee. Further whatever contentions have been raised by the assessee before authorities below have not been substantiated by any material on record. Mere filing of affidavit of brothers is only self serving and would not prove anything in favour of the assessee. The assessee has been making deposits in the bank account during the entire year. Therefore, explanation of assessee that amount was contributed by his brother for marriage of two daughter and out of sale proceedings of popular plants etc. has no relevance to the matter because assessee has been continuing in making deposit in his bank account. The source of the bank deposit has not been explained. At one stage assessee explained that withdrawals have been made out of the bank account for the purpose of incurring marriage expenses. When amounts were withdrawn for the purpose of marriage, there is no question of redeposit of the same amount in the bank account of the assessee as is contended by Ld. Counsel for assessee. It is therefore a fact that assessee failed to explain source of the cash deposit in the bank account to the satisfaction of the authorities below. AO has already extended sufficient benefit to the assessee for the purpose of making the addition on this issue. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that it being an old case, it is difficult for assessee to produce evidence or material on record to explain entire deposits in the bank account, therefore, on the face of the same submission it is clear that assessee is not in a position to explain the source of the cash deposit in the bank account. The appeal of assessee itself has no merit same is therefore dismissed.
In the result appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Court.