Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 14.03.2016 in relation to the Assessment Year 2008-09.
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of additions to the extent of Rs.13,77,000/- and Rs.50,000/-.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs.1,00,220/-. Several notices were issued, but, the assessee did not appear before the AO. Finally, a show cause notice u/s 144 was given to the Inspector for service, which was affixed on the last known address. In the absence of the assessee participating in the proceedings, the AO made addition of Rs.13,55,550/- on account of share transactions with M/s India Bulls Securities Ltd. and of Rs.24,79,000/- on account of cash deposits with Punjab National bank.
During the course of first appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished some evidence which was sent by the ld. CIT(A) to the AO, who, in turn, submitted remand report. On consideration of the entire material including the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) noticed that there was a transaction of Rs.50,000/- with India Bulls Securities Ltd. as against originally considered by the AO at Rs.13.55 lac and further there were cash deposits on 26.10.2007 at Rs.8,14,000/- and on 29.01.2008 at Rs.5.63 lac totaling to Rs.13.77 lac as against originally noted by the AO at Rs.24.79 lac. He, therefore, restricted the additions to these levels.
The assessee is aggrieved against these additions.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In so far as the addition of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, it is emanating from the copy of bank account of the assessee that payments of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- were made on 15.12.2006 to India Bulls Securities Ltd. The assessment year under consideration is 2008-09. Thus, it becomes manifest that the deposits with India Bulls Securities Ltd., for the addition sustained, were made in an earlier year.
As such, this addition cannot be countenance in the assessment year under consideration. The same is ordered to be deleted.
The other addition is of Rs.13.77 lac represents the amounts deposited by the assessee in Punjab National Bank, New Delhi. The amount was deposited in two trenches, namely Rs.8.14 lac on 26.10.2007 and Rs.5.63 lac on 29.01.2008. The assessee submitted that his father was an agriculturist having huge land who was murdered in June, 2004 and these deposits in the bank emanated from the recoveries made from the borrowers of his father for the amounts advanced during his life time. The AO in the remand report dated 29.08.2014 has recorded that the Will of the assessee’s father is dated 16.3.2004 which 3
shows that the assessee shall be sole heir to the assets of the executor and the same was executed four months before the death of the executants. It has further been recorded that the stamp papers on which confirmations were obtained by the assessee from the alleged borrowers of his father were purchased on 28.7.2004, that is, after his death. There is a complete mismatch between the assessee’s version and the actual facts. I am, further, unable to accept the assessee’s contention for the reason that his father’s death took place in 2004 and these amounts have been deposited in the assessee’s bank account in October, 2007/January, 2008. It is not understandable as to how all of a sudden the assessee recovered a sum of Rs.13.77 lac from some alleged borrowers of his late father after a gap of around four years. No evidence apart from this bald assertion has been placed on record. Under these circumstances, I am convinced that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The impugned order is upheld to this extent. This ground fails.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.