GOVIND LAL CHOUDHARY,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 557/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17. cuke Shri Govind Lal Choudhary The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 36/624, Govind Sadan, Ajmer. Mahadev Nagar, Police Line Nala, Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADQPC 2025 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sanjeev Jain, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Ajey Malik, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 10/10/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 30/10/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.03.2023 of ld. CIT (A), Udaipur-2 passed under section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-

1. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by upholding validity of assessment u/s 153C in case Notice u/s 153C was issued by ld. Assessing Officer without recording satisfaction in terms of that section.

2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by treating cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit.

The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 106 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit for condonation of delay, which reads as under “ Subject: Petition for Condonation of Delay in filing Appeal. Respected Sir, With reference to the above subject, the I would like to request you to kindly condone the delay in filing Income Tax Appeal due to reasons specified hereunder:

1. 1. I being Senior Citizen and having old age does not keep well most of the time and used to live with my son as my wife had already expired. These days I am not living at my permanent address.

2. The Order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) came late to my knowledge and therefore I could not take timely decision to file appeal against it.

3. When I approached my counsel then only I got to know about the available remedy of filing further Appeal before your goodself. In the above process, filing of appeal before your goodself got delayed. In view of the above facts, you are requested to take a lenient view and kindly condone the delay in filing appeal. Place: Ajmer Dated: 24.08.2023 Yours Sincerely Sd/- (Appellant)”

2. Having considered the rival submissions as well as going through the contents of the application and affidavit of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 106 days in filing the present appeal.

Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A), the assessee has now preferred this appeal before us. Ground No. 1 relates to upholding validity of assessment u/s 153C in case notice u/s 153C was issued by AO without recording satisfaction in terms of that section.

“ 5.2 I have considered the submission of ld. A/R and carefully gone through the material available on record. There is no dispute on the fact that satisfaction was recorded by the AO before issuing notice u/s 153C. The appellant argued that addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was also made in the hands o Sh. Gagandeep who was intercepted for carrying cash. Therefore, the AO was not sure about the ownership of the cash found from Mr. Gagandeep. This argument of the appellant is not found acceptable. The person who was intercepted with cash himself stated that out of Rs. 12 lakhs, an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was given by the appellant to him. Therefore, on the basis of this information satisfaction was recorded. Whether the amount is finally added in the hands of the appellant or not depends on the explanations offered and evidences furnished during assessment proceedings. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are on different facts and not found applicable on the facts of the case. Considering facts of the case, the validity of assessment u/s 153C is upheld.”

In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the statement recorded under section 131(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 on 01.12.2016 of Shri Gagandeep S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) in rejecting ground no.1 relating to issuance of notice under section 153C. We upheld the order of the ld. CIT (A). Ground No. 2 relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT (A) whereby an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- was sustained by ld. CIT (A) as unexplained cash credit.

5.1 For the assessment year under consideration, it was found that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 14,78,500/- in cash in his bank account.

In order to explain the source of said cash deposit, it was categorically submitted by the assessee that a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was found in the hidden belongings of his wife on her death, which was her ‘Stridhan’. Since the assessee could not substantiate his version by evidence, therefore, the AO treated the entire amount of Rs. 14,78,500/- as unexplained and consequently made the addition under section 68 of the IT Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) while considering the cash flow statement, deleted part addition and sustained the remaining addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

5.2 Before us, against this addition, the ld. A/R reiterated arguments as were made by him before the lower authorities and pointed out that assessee had deposited cash in his bank account on different dates amounting to Rs. 14,78,500/- in total and at the time of said deposits, the assessee used to earn Rs. 35,000/- every year from his agricultural activities and out of the said bank deposits, assessee had declared the source of Rs. 10,00,000/- as hidden belongings of his deceased wife which he found on her death being her ‘Stridhan’ which was deposited by him in his bank account. In order to substantiate his submission, it was categorically submitted that wife of the assessee was illiterate and was not having her independent bank account.

Therefore, all her household savings contributed to her by her husband, including her ‘Stridhan’ was kept by her at home only. Apart from this, assessee is a retired employee and his entire retirement funds were available with his wife which was also kept at home itself. It was further submitted that other cash deposits by the assessee was re-deposition of excess withdrawals done by the assessee from his bank account for medical contingencies as he and his wife both were in old age so the same were used to be re-deposited by him in his bank account, when the same were not utilized. We, after hearing the both the parties and also considering the peculiar facts of the present case, find that the amount deposited by the assessee in the bank account stands fully explained and we are of the view that the amount deposited by the assesee was from explained sources, as the assessee was a retired Government employee and was having no business activity. Therefore, there was no scope of undisclosed accumulation of amount and even otherwise, the AO could not point out any undisclosed accumulation of amount by the assessee from any other source. Thus, in our view, the assessee has successfully discharged his onus by explaining all the factual position regarding the source of cash deposits before the revenue authorities. The ld. CIT (A) had rejected the part version of the assessee and 8 Shri Govind Lal Choudhary, Ajmer. accepted the remaining version. In our view, the revenue authorities could not rebut the specific assertion put forth by the assessee before us and have not pointed out any contrary circumstances which lead to conclusion that the submissions made by the assessee are without any basis of foundation. Therefore, taking into consideration each and every circumstances of the case of the assessee that the amount deposited by the assessee in his bank account was from explained sources, we delete the addition.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/10/2023.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ ½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30/10/2023. Das/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Govind Lal Choudhary, Ajmer. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The Income Tax Officer, Ajmer. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 557/JP/2023} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत