ASHOK DEORAO SATHE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM

This appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad dated 08.09.2016 for assessment year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised following ground in appeal:

2 A.Y.2009-10

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Lower Authorities have erred in confirming the addition on account of cash deposited in bank by disregarding appellant’s contention that the agricultural land which was sold by the appellant was jointly held between 3 brothers and their portion of consideration was also included in the hands of the appellant, your appellant prays for appropriate relief.”

and filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. Nil. As per AIR

information, assessee deposited an aggregate amount Rs.29,05,000/- in his

savings bank account. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer

gathered that the assessee sold agricultural land during the year under consideration at Rs. 27,00,000/-. The aforesaid land was owned by assessee

along with his two brothers. The assessee has 1/3rd share in the said

agricultural land at Aurangabad. The said sale proceeds amounting to Rs.27,00,000/- was deposited with the bank on 06/11/2008. There was another cash deposit of Rs.1,75,000/- on 22.12.2008. During scrutiny

assessment proceedings, in response to Assessing Officer’s query about

source of the said cash deposit, assessee submitted that the entire sale

proceeds amounting to Rs.27,00,000/- was deposited on 06.11.2008. Per

contra, the Assessing Officer noted from sale deed that the total consideration

of the agricultural land was only to the tune of Rs.9,58,500/- and assessee’s

share comes to the tune of Rs.3,19,500/-. Assessee did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate in support of Rs.27,00,000/-. Further, there is no explanation at all with regard to the other cash deposit of Rs.1,75,000/-.

Eventually, at the end of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

proceeded to make addition to the tune of Rs.25,55,500/- after giving set off

of assessee’s share on sale proceeds. The total unexplained cash deposits as worked out by the Assessing Officer are as under:

3 A.Y.2009-10

“5. As discussed above and after verification of submission made by the assessee it is crystal clear that the assessee has made total cash deposit of Rs.28,75,000/- in saving account as per bank statement out of which sale of agricultural land on 24.10.2008 and share of the assessee comes to Rs.3,19,500/- which is after considering the same Rs.25,55,500/- is unexplained cash deposit in saving bank of the assessee. Cash deposits in saving bank account 1. 06.11.2008 Rs.27,00,000/- 2. 22/12/2008 Rs.1,75,000/- ============== Rs.28,75,000/- Less :- Out of sale Agril. Land and 1/3rd (-) Rs.3,19,500/- Share of Rs.9,58,500/-

Unexplained cash deposits Rs.25,55,500/-”

During the assessment proceedings, there is no compliance to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, Assessing Officer

recorded seven instances of issuing notice and non compliance to the said

notices. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice proposing ex-parte

assessment. Thereafter, Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s. 143(3)

r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

of CIT(A). Eventually, CIT(A) confirmed the same as per discussion given in Para 7 of his order.

Before the Tribunal

adjourned announcing the date in open court and posting the case for hearing on 15.05.2018. Notice was served on the assessee as is evident from the acknowledgement of notice dated 26.03.2018 placed on record. On the said date of hearing i.e. on 15.05.2018, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is apparent from the orders of Lower Authorities that assessee is habitual in non-complying with the notices for hearing of case and in the proceedings before the Tribunal too. Considering simplicity of the facts and issue under consideration, I am of the opinion that the issue can be adjudicated with the assistance of the Ld. DR for the Revenue and documents

on record.

bank account of the assessee. It is the contention of the assessee that total

consideration of sale proceeds is at Rs.27,00,000/- but on the contrary, the documents suggest only Rs.9,58,500/-. There is no evidence for the balance

cash deposit amounting to Rs.17,41,500/-. The assessee did not produce any evidence to substantiate the total sale consideration at Rs.27,00,000/-. The assessee could only explain & produce evidence to the tune of Rs.9,58,500/-

out of the total cash deposits.

“7. The facts related to this case have been narrated above. It is noticeable that the assessee has not been forthcoming during the course of assessment proceedings as well as in appellate proceedings. The assessee has challenged the additions made by the assessing officer. However, he is not produced any evidence in support of his contention that the impugned cash deposits were made by him out of the consideration received for sale of land at Daulatabad. The assessee has also not been able to substantiate his claim that the land was jointly owned with his two other brothers. The assessee was able to produce evidence only to the tune of Rs.9,58,500/- out of the total the cash

5 A.Y.2009-10

deposits of Rs.28,75,000/-. The assessing officer had allowed credit for only Rs.3,19,500/- out of the total consideration of Rs.9,58,500/-. There is no reason as to why credit has not been for the entire amount and only for a partial amount. Therefore in my opinion, if the assessee has been able to prove the source of cash deposits of a certain amount, merely because his share in the same was Rs.3,19,500/- will not be sufficient for not giving credit for the full amount. Therefore I direct the assessing officer to give credit for Rs.9,58,500/- instead of Rs.3,19,500/- given by him. The assessee gets a relief of Rs.6,39,000/-.”

From the above, it is evident that the total sale proceeds of the said

agricultural land amounts to Rs.9,58,500/- only and the same was given

credit by CIT(A) and granted partial relief to the assessee. Therefore, in my

view, the decision of CIT(A) in giving relief to the extent of Rs.9,58,500/- is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference.

any documentary evidence on the issue raised by revenue. Therefore, I find

merit in the order of CIT(A) and Assessing Officer on this issue. Accordingly,

ground raised by assessee is dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

पुणे / Pune; "दनांक / Dated : 06th June, 2018. SB

6 A.Y.2009-10

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

"नजी स"चव /Private Secretary आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.