Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
Date of Hearing : 27-10-2015 Date of Order : 27-10-2015
O R D E R This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi dated 30.5.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2005-06.
The grounds of appeal read as under:-
“On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred:
In sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,53,000/- to the income of the appellant.
2. In sustaining the addition of Rs. 55,000/- received from four persons whose names and addresses have been furnished.
3. In sustaining the addition of Rs. 30,000/- received from father-in- law Shri GC Sharma and Rs. 30,000/- from her mother Mrs. Urmila Singhal out of Rs. 63,000/- deposited in the appellant’s Bank on 23.9.2004.
In sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,35,000/- received in cash from the buyer Smt. Savita Rani over and above the doucmented price for the property sold by the appelant to the buyer ignoring the copy of agreement to sell of the property duly signed by the buyer and the appellant seller. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute or delete any of the grounds of appeal on ore before the date of hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is working with World Health Organization and the return of income was filed on 28.7.2005 declaring NIL income. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that there were cash deposits of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.9.2004, Rs. 63,000/- on 23.9.2004, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 2.11.2004, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 3.11.2004 and Rs. 35,000/- on 5.11.2004 in assessee’s bank account with Standard Chartered Bank, Sansad Marg Branch. As the AO was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee regarding the source of these cash deposits the entire cash deposit of Rs. 3,98,000/- was added back as assessee’s undisclosed income for the relevant year. The AO also added Rs. 20,000/- for low household withdrawals and completed the assessment at a total income of Rs. 4,18,000/- vide order dated 28.12.2007 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4 Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) partly allowed the Appeal of the assessee vide order dated 30.5.2014.
Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Ld. Counsel of the assessee reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and requested that the additions/disallowances may be deleted.
On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
I have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. With regard to addition of Rs. 55,000/- received from four persons whose names and addresses have been furnished. I find that the AO in the assessment order had not accepted the explanation of the assessee even for the confirmed amount of Rs. 45,000/- received from 4 people on the ground that initially the assessee had stated that this amount was received from family members and that these 4 people had given confirmation to the AO and the amounts are small varying from RS. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-, the addition of Rs. 45,000/- was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). But the balance addition of Rs. 55,000/- was rightly sustained as the remaining 4 persons had not responded to the notices issued by the AO and as the assessee had not filed any confirmation from them even during the appellate proceedings. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the issue in dispute, which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the same and dismiss the ground no. 2 raised by the Assessee.
With regard to sustaining of addition of Rs. 63,000/- deposited in the assessee’s bank account on 23.9.2004 is concerned, I find that the cash deposit of Rs. 63,000/- on 23.9.2004 was explained by the assessee as taken from her family members. In the sworn statement recorded on 29.8.2007, the assessee had stated that Rs. 30,000/- was taken from the father-in-law Sh. GC Sharma and another Rs. 30,000/- was taken from her mother Mrs. Urmila Singhal. Since the assessee did not substantiate with evidence the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 63,000/- made on 23.9.2004, the AO added back the amount as undisclosed income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. I further find that even the appellate proceedings no evidence was submitted by the assessee to prove the source of Rs. 30,000/- purported to have received from the father-in-law Shri GC Sharma and of Rs. 30,000/- purported to have received from her mother Mrs. Urmila Singhal. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence regarding the source of cash of Rs. 63,000/- deposited on 23.9.2004 in assessee’s account with Standard Chartered Bank, Sansad Marg Branch, the addition made by the AO was rightly upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the same and dismiss the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee.
With regard to sustaining of addition of Rs 2,35,000/- received in cash from the buyer Smt. Savita Rani is concerned, I find that with regard to cash deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- on 02.11.2004, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 03.11.2004 and Rs. 35,000/-on 05.11.2004, the assessee's explanation was that this amount was received from Smt. Savita Rani over and above the documented price for the property sold by the appellant to her. Since the documented price as per the sale deed was less, the Assessing Officer issued summons to Smt. Savita Rani to verify this aspect and she vide her letter dated. 26.12.2007 to the Assessing Officer stated that only documented price was paid by her while purchasing the property.
The assessee had filed an agreement to sell during the assessment proceedings but even that showed the consideration at a lower price by Rs. 35,000/-. The onus is on the assessee to prove the source of the cash deposited in her bank accounts and to prove that she had received money over and above the documented price.
Based on the information and the evidence submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had summoned the purchaser and she stated that only the sale consideration mentioned in the document was paid. It was pointed out to the assessee during the appellate proceedings that the onus had now shifted back to the assessee to prove the source of the cash deposited in her bank accounts and the Authorized Representative requested for time to produce the purchaser of the property to substantiate that the appellant had received cash~over and above the documented price. However, subsequently the assessee's Authorized Representative expressed his inability to produce the purchaser of the property and therefore, the assessee had not discharged her onus to prove that she had received Rs.2,35,000/- over and above the documented price from Smt. Savita Rani. Thus the assessee is unable to prove the source of cash of Rs. 2,35,000/- deposited on 02.11.2004, 03.11.2004 and on 05.11.2004 in her bank account with Standard Chartered Bank, Sansad Marg Branch and therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,35,000/- was rightly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) sustained which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the same and dismiss the ground no. 4 raised by the Assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 11. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/10/2015.