DHARAMPAL SINGH,NEEMKATHANA vs. ITO, NEEMKATHANA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 124/JP/2023
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 124/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 cuke Dharampal Singh Income Tax Officer Vs. S/o Shri Bhana Rama, Neemkathana Vill.- Jhalara, Neemkathana LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BPWPS 2201 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. S. Shekhawat (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 19/04/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 03/05/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 15/02/2023 [here in after (NFAC)/ ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2009-10 which in turn arise from the order dated 19.08.2011 passed under section 148/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward, Neemkathana.
In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -
2 ITA No. 124/JP/2023 Dharampal Singh vs. ITO “1. The learned AO erred by not accepting brought forward cash from last year duly supported by accepted cash A/c in order passed by Scrutiny Assessment by the learned same AO. 2. The AO erred not to accept Brought forward cash and Receipt by sale of Agricultural products duly supported by Govt. Sale Bills. 3. The Assessee craves to make addition, correction, Alternation, Modification in grounds of Appeal on or before final hearing of Appeal.”
Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that during the
previous year 2008-09 relevant to assessment year 2009-10, the assessee
had made cash deposits in his saving bank account No. 0790101423496
for a sum of Rs. 48,500/- with the Bank of Rajasthan and ICICI Bank, Jaipur
account No. 031501000808 for a sum of Rs. 4,38,500/-. Since the return of
income filed on 20.07.2010 was showing Nil Income, the nature and
sources of the cash deposited in the above bank accounts amounting to Rs.
4,87,000/- is to be looked into. Based on these facts notice u/s. 148 of the
Act was issued on 30.07.2010 and served upon the assessee through post.
In response to notice u/s. 148, the AR of the assessee has filed a written
reply on 16.08.2010 stating that the return of income already filed on
28.07.2010 showing Nil income may be treated as having filed in response
to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. During the course of the assessment
proceeding the assessee was asked to explain the source of the money
deposited in the above two bank accounts. The assessee has filed various
details in support the source of the cash deposited into the bank account of
3 ITA No. 124/JP/2023 Dharampal Singh vs. ITO the assessee, the written reply of the assessee and finding of the ld. AO as
it is evident form the assessment order is reiterated here in below:
“8. The A/R of the assessee further furnished a written reply on 18/08/2011 which reads as under:
Availability of cash is well proved with the assessee him self and other family members. Source of income is income from agricultural only i.e. Not taxable.
During the proceedings for the A.S.2008-9 U/S 143 (2)142 (1) cash a/c of the Assessee has acceipt of last year available as opening cash balance in addition to this receipt of krishi UPAJ Mandi, Neem ka thana is submitted for A,Y. 2009- 10.
Accumulated cash available during financial Year 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10.
As assessee was facing competitative Examination during the period under consideration, cash was deposited with two bank accounts i.e. with (A) The Bank of Rajasthan LTD Neem ka thana (B) ICICI Bank as per requirement of Assessee to get ready operated his A.T.M.
During the course of assessment proceeding, on 10/8/2011, the A/R of the assessee was specifically asked to furnish original Kisan Credit Card and other documents relating to raise the bank loans. But neither Kisan Credit Card nor any documents relating to raise loan from bank was produced by the A/R. Moreover, the explanations as given by the A/R have been gone through carefully and considered.
After going through the same and after consideration, I do not find them as satisfactory for the reasons given as under:
1- The A/R has filed cash account and a photo copy of Receipt of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti of book No 407 without number and date.
2- It is hardly believable that a father and or brother would give the cash out of their agricultural income to his son or brother without any proper object. If they would give, they would ask him to utilize the amount for particular purpose.
4 ITA No. 124/JP/2023 Dharampal Singh vs. ITO 11. Therefore, cash deposited by the assessee on different date in the above mentioned two bank is not that amount which was tried to explain by the A/R.
For the reasons as discussed above, it stands proved beyond the doubt that the nature and sources of the deposited amount of Rs.4,87.000/- in the two banks named above remains unexplained and accordingly, the same is treated as income from other sources as unexplained income within meaning of section 69 of the I.T. Act 1961 and added bank in the total income the assessee.
As the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed the income thereby, penalty proceeding U/S 271 (1) (c) are being initiated separately.
With these remarks total income is computed as income
Income as returned Nil
Income from other sources as discussed above Rs. 4,87,000/-
Total income Rs. 4,87,000/-
Assessed. Issue Demand Notice and challan. Charge interest u/s 234A & 234B. Initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and there concealed the income.”
Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the
ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the ground so raised the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is
reproduced here in below:
“5.2.2 I have considered the submission of the assessee and gone through AO’s order. The only argument taken by the appellant that, on identical facts, in appellant’s own case in AY 2008-09 i.e. in just preceding year no adverse view was taken, therefore, identical view is solicited for impugned year as well. However, the appellant failed to understand that in tax matter principle of Estopel and res Judicata are not applicable as each and every assessment year is different one. Further, no documentary evidence or cogent material whatsoever, are brought on record to explain the source of
5 ITA No. 124/JP/2023 Dharampal Singh vs. ITO
cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 4,87,000/-. Under these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the order of AO, hence the ground of appeal no. 2 so taken is dismissed.”
As the assessee has not received any relief from the order of the ld.
CIT(A) the assessee carried the matter before this tribunal by filling an
appeal on the grounds as reiterated in para 2 above. To support the
grounds so raised the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has
placed their written submission which is extracted in below;
Reply for wrong dismissal Grounds No. 2 of the Appeal, by The CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi By order Dated 15.02.2023 The Learned CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi Dismissal of Grounds No. 2 of the Appeal was “quite WRONG merely to Say” No Documentary evidence cogent Material what so ever, are brought on record to explain the source of Cash deposited to the tune of Rs. 4,87,000. Assessee had Submitted at very initial Stage and also before hearing of First Appeal The following documents proving availability of Cash with Assessee: A. Copy of Kishan Card Valid upto 31.05.2010 Rs. 2,00,000 B. Copy of Pass Book of Loan A/c from Rajasthan Gramin Bank for A/c No. 486 valid upto 31.05.2010 of Rs. 2,00,000. C. Certificate of Govt. Body Krishi upaj Mandi, Nimkathana, including Receipts of Sale proceeds of Assessee’s Agricultural products: R. No. 407/9 Rs. 50137=50 R. No. 407/21 Rs. 26335=50 R. No. 407/22 Rs. 40436=10 R. No. 396/69 Rs. 35381=25 R. No. 336/71 Rs. 39312=50 R. No. 408/44 Rs. 79462=50 Total 271065=35 Accumulation of Brought forward Cash from Ass. Year 2008-09 was Rs. 842412.00 Sale proceeding this year (50137 Main Product 375000 Padaari-charaa=425137 Total Rs. 425137.00 Cash Available 1267549.00 In Bank Deposited only 438500.00 C/d Balance to Next year 829049.00
6 ITA No. 124/JP/2023 Dharampal Singh vs. ITO Total Sale Proceeds of this years Products were Rs. 425137. Out of these of Rs. 271065/- were Supported by krishi upaj Mandi Receipts and Balance was received by Sale of Feed & Fodder- Padaari etc. Moreover, he was having Credit facility of Kisan Card of Rs. 2,00,000.” Encl: 1.Copy of Kishan Card 2. Copy of Bank pass book of loan a/c 3. Copies of Krishi Upaj Mandi Receipts 4. Copy of certificate of Krishi Upaj mandli 5. Copy of cash account of A. Y. 2009-10 and 6. Copy of cash account of AY.2008-09
The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the written submission
submitted that even though all the details were given to the assessing
officer he has not made any independent enquiry to counter the documents
filed by the assessee. Instead of asking the original Kishar Credit Card he
may have placed on record the correct fact by asking the lending institution
by issue of letter u/s. 133(6), as regards the Krishi Upaj Mandli receipt the
same enquiry should have been done. But the ld. AO merely based on the
one or the other reasons has not considered the documents on its merits
and made the addition. Even the ld. CIT(A) has not given any specific
finding on the evidence placed on record and in fact he has stated that
assessee has not explained the source of the cash deposit. This finding of
the ld. CIT(A) is incorrect and without considering the order of the
assessing officer where in he has recorded the fact that the assessee has
given all the evidence to justify the cash deposited in the bank account. The
7 ITA No. 124/JP/2023 Dharampal Singh vs. ITO ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the assessee has clarified the
purpose of the cash deposit so as to withdraw the money by the assessee
where he is perusing the higher study.
The ld DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower
authorities but at the same time submitted that the paper book filed by the
assessee did not certify that the documents filed and relied upon are also
filed before the lower authorities as there is specific finding of the ld. CIT(A)
that the assessee has not submitted the details. Based on these set of fact
he prayed that let the issue be verified by the ld. AO and verify the source
based on the evidence relied upon.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed
on record. The bench noted that the ld. CIT(A) has merely stated that the
assessee has not filed documentary evidence or cogent material to explain
the source of cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 4,87,000/-. Whereas on going
through the assessment order it is evident from the finding of the ld. AO that
he has rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the original
kishan credit card for taking loan was not furnished and the receipt of Krishi
Upaj Mandi Samiti where in book no. serial number and date is not
8 ITA No. 124/JP/2023 Dharampal Singh vs. ITO appearing. The bench feels that the ld. AO if doubted the veracity of the
document he may have verified the same by issue of notice u/s. 133(6) of
the Act which he did not and rejected the claim of the assessee on technical
grounds. Since, the ld. DR taken a plea that the assessee has not certified
that the same documents were before the ld. AO or not, we feel that let
these documents again be verified by the ld. AO and he may verify the
veracity of the document in accordance with the law and also consider the
claim of the assessee on merits. The bench noted that in fact the
photocopy of the kishan credit card reveal that the assessee has taken loan
and the assessee has also produce the receipt Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
wherein the required details of showing the date of receipt serial number
and book number is evidently clear. Based on the fact as argued by both
the parties we feel it in the interest of the justice to set a side the issue to
the file of the AO to verify the documents in support of the claim about the
source of money deposited into the bank account based on all these
evidences. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the ld. AO in
deciding the issue on merits and without sufficient reason, not to take
further adjournments. Before parting, we may make it clear that our
decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO shall in no way
be construed as having a reflection or expression on merits of the dispute,
9 ITA No. 124/JP/2023 Dharampal Singh vs. ITO which shall be adjudicated by the learned assessing officer independently in
accordance with the law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ lanhi xkslkbZ ½ ¼ jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ ½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 03/05/2023 *Ganesh Kumar आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Sh. Dharampal Singh, Neemkathana 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Neemkathana 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 124/JP/2023) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
