RAGHUBIR SINGH SISODIA,JANJGIR-CHAMPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- JANJGIR-CHAMPA, JANJGIR-CHAMPA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD
आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 01.11.2021, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 09.12.2019 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:
“01. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, That the addition made by the learned AO and Confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre of Rs.7,00,000/- against the cash deposited in the saving bank account by an agriculturist, without establishing any other source of Income, so the addition made by the learned AO, without considering the fact, is bad in law and against the principal of natural justice. 02. That the addition made u/s. 69A, which is not applicable in the case of assessee at all, no any search conducted, no any survey conducted, addition made with wrong section as ownership of money and not disclosure is wrongly considered, the addition made on that ground is also bad in law and against the principal of natural justice. 03. That the penalty proceeding initiated u/s.271(1) (c) for the concealment of particulars is bad in law, though the details had been furnished during the assessment proceeding, no any income had been concealed or no any false statement has been given by the assessee, without considering the same
3 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
initiation of the penalty is bad in law and against the principal of natural justice 04. That other relief as the Honourable Court deems fit may kindly be allowed. 05. That the Appel/ reserve the right to add omit, or amend any ground after the copies of relevant document supplied by the AO or at the time of hearing of appeal.”
On the basis of information received by the A.O that the assessee during the year under consideration had made cash deposits of Rs.18.80 lac in his saving bank account with State Bank of India, Branch: Janjgir but had not filed his return of income, the A.O issued notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 14.03.2019. In compliance, the assessee e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2012-13 on 07.10.2019, declaring an income of Rs.68,640/- a/w. agriculture income of Rs.5,00,284/-.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had in two tranches deposited an amount of Rs.18.80 lac in his saving bank account with State Bank of India, Branch: Janjgir, viz. (i) cash deposit of Rs.13 lac on 20.05.2011; and (ii) cash deposit of Rs.5.80 lac on 25.05.2011. On being queried about the source of the aforesaid cash deposits it was the claim of the assessee that the same comprised of, viz. (i) cash deposit that was sourced out of sale of agricultural land on
4 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
24.05.2011: Rs.7.80 lac; and (ii) balance cash deposit out of savings/redeposit of cash withdrawals: Rs.11 lac. The assessee on being called upon to substantiate his claim as regards availability of cash in hand the form of savings with him filed with the A.O a cash flow statement which, inter alia, revealed withdrawal made by him from his bank account with Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Baradwar Branch from 06.01.2010 onwards. On a perusal of the cash flow statement, it was observed by the A.O that the same revealed cash withdrawals of Rs.35,000/- on 06.01.2010, Rs.50,000/- on 22.01.2010, Rs.50,000/- on 28.01.2010, Rs.20,000/- on 28.01.2010, Rs.20,000/- on 04.02.2010, Rs.20,00,000/- on 08.02.2010, Rs.2,32,000/- on 15.02.2010 and thereafter, there was a cash deposit of Rs.25,000/- on 20.04.2010, Rs.25,000/- on 21.04.2010, Rs.25,000/- on 29.10.2010 and Rs.25,000/- on 12.11.2010. Although, the A.O accepted the claim of the assessee that the cash deposits in his bank account with State Bank of India, Branch: Janjgir were partly sourced out of sale proceeds of agricultural land of Rs.7.80 lac (supra), but he was not inclined to accept his explanation that the balance amount of deposits were made out of the cash in hand available with him either in the form savings or re- deposit of cash withdrawals.
5 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
Apropos the claim of the assessee that the savings available with him were in turn partly sourced out of the cash withdrawals made from his bank account with Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Branch: Baradwar from 06.01.2010 to 15.02.2010 which, thereafter, were deposited by him in his saving bank account with State Bank of India, Branch: Janjgir on 20.05.2011, the same did not find favour with the A.O. Holding a conviction that it was incomprehensible that the cash withdrawals made by the assessee from 06.01.2010 would have been available with him for a period of more than 1 year and redeposited on 20.05.2011, the A.O rejected the claim of the assesee to the said effect. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O was of the view that considering the proximity of the date on which the assessee had sold his agricultural land i.e. on 24.05.2011 and the date of cash deposit i.e. 20/25.05.2011 it could safely be inferred that the same was the “on money” which the assessee would have received pursuant to the aforesaid sale transaction. Accordingly, the A.O was of the view that the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the cash deposit of Rs.11 lac (out of Rs.18.80 lac) in his bank account. At the same time, the A.O in all fairness was of the view that as the assessee was an agriculturist, therefore, cash deposits in his bank account could safely be held to have been sourced from his past savings of Rs.1 lac. Accordingly, the
6 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations held the balance amount of cash deposit of Rs.10 lac as the assessee’s unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act.
On the basis of his aforesaid observations the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 09.12.2019 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.10,68,640/- a/w. agriculture income of Rs.5,00,284/-.
Aggrieved, the assesee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Although the CIT(Appeals) was principally in agreement with the view taken by the A.O, but at the same time, considering the cash withdrawals of Rs.5.87 lac that were made by the assessee over the period 06.01.2010 to 15.02.2010 from his bank account, he further allowed a benefit of cash of Rs.3 lac which as per him would have been available with the assessee on the date of deposit in the bank account. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) restricted the addition in the hands of the assessee to an amount of Rs.7 lacs.
The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me.
At the time of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee that
7 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
the present appeal involved a delay of 257 days. The Ld. AR elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay involved in filing of the present appeal had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the same a/w. an affidavit dated 10.09.2022 of the assessee appellant. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee who is a senior citizen aged about 75 years and is putting up all alone had been suffering from multiple health issues. My attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the medical certificate dated 15.12.2021 and certain medical reports dated 15/16.03.2022, which revealed that the assessee had undergone certain treatment for a cardiac issue with Apollo Heart Institute, Bilaspur, Page 8 to 14 of APB. Also, my attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the discharge certificate of the abovementioned hospital viz. Apollo Heart Institute, Bilaspur as per which the assessee had remained under treatment for a cardiac problem and was admitted with the said hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that as the assessee being a senior citizen was not keeping good health and had remained engrossed in his medical treatment since last many years, therefore, for the said reason he had inadvertently delayed the filing of the present appeal. Considering the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that a sympathetic view may be taken and
8 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
the delay involved in filing of the appeal in all fairness may be condoned.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) though at the very outset in all fairness submitted that considering the old age and ill-health of the assessee a sympathetic approach may be taken, but at the same time he stated that the documents which were filed by the assessee for seeking condonation of the delay did not inspire much of confidence. Elaborating further, it was submitted by the Ld. DR that the medical certificate filed by the assessee was not relevant to the period in which the appeal ought to have been filed within the stipulated time period with the Tribunal.
I have given a thoughtful consideration to the circumstances, which as claimed by the assessee had resulted to the delay in filing of the present appeal. Considering the fact that the assessee is a senior citizen aged about 75 years and is admittedly suffering from various medical ailments, I am of the considered view that a sympathetic approach merits to be taken in his case. Admittedly, the appellant was expected to have remained vigilant as regards filing of the appeal within the prescribed time period, however, considering the peculiar facts of the present case, wherein the assessee before me is a senior citizen who is suffering from various medical ailments, the aforesaid
9 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
delay involved in filing of the appeal merits to be condoned. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations condone the delay of 257 days involved in filing of the present appeal.
Adverting to the merits of the case, I find that it is the claim of the Ld. AR that the CIT(Appeals) had erred in law and facts of the case in partly sustaining the addition of Rs.7 lac as regards the cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account with State Bank of India, Branch: Janjgir. On a perusal of the assessment order, I find that the claim of the assessee that the balance cash deposit of Rs.11 lac (supra) in his aforesaid bank account was partly sourced out of the cash withdrawals made from 06.01.2010 onwards, was rejected by the A.O by dubbing the same as an afterthought story, observing as under:
“……The assessee submitted that apart from the cash received from the sale of agricultural land the rest amount of Rs.11,00,000/- deposited in the savings bank account is from his own savings. The cash flow statement filed by the assessee shows cash withdrawal of Rs.35,000/- on 06.01.2010, Rs.50,000/- on 22.01.2010, Rs.50,000/- on 28.01.2010, Rs.20,000/- on 28.01.2010, Rs.20,000/- on 04.02.2010, Rs.20,00,000/- on 08.02.2010, Rs.2,32,000/- on 15.02.2010 and thereafter, there was a cash deposit of Rs.25,000/- on 20.04.2010, Rs.25,000/- on 21.04.2010, Rs.25,000/- on 29.10.2010 and Rs.25,000/- on 12.11.2010. The point that comes out from the analysis of the bank statement is that the assessee had gone to the bank to deposit a small surplus of Rs.25,000/- on various dates, hence the submission of the assessee that cash withdrawn from 06.01.2010 onwards has been kept with him till 20.05.2011 for a period of more than one year and deposited on 20.05.2011 at the time of the sale of agriculture land is nothing but an after thought to justify the source of deposit without any documentary evidence…..”
10 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
I have given a thoughtful consideration and concur with the view taken by the A.O that it is beyond preponderance of human probability that the assessee would have withdrawn cash from his bank account with Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Baradwar Branch from 06.01.2010 onwards and thereafter, kept the same with him till 20.05.2011 i.e. for a period of more than 1 year and redeposited the said sum at the time of sale of agricultural land. I am of the view that as the aforesaid explanation of the assessee is nothing but a concocted story hatched by him to justify the source of cash deposits, thus, the same cannot be accepted and had rightly been rejected by the A.O.
As regards the claim of the assessee that the cash deposits were sourced from his agriculture income, I find that as observed by the A.O, and, rightly so, as the assessee was in receipt of sale proceeds of agricultural produce i.e. paddy vide cheques from the samiti to whom the same were sold, therefore, his aforesaid explanation in absence of any supporting material does not merit acceptance. In case, the assessee would have sold any intermittent crop, then, the onus was cast upon him to establish the said fact by placing on record supporting documentary evidence, which, I find had not been done by him. On the basis of my aforesaid observations, I find no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O that the assessee’s
11 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
claim that cash deposits in his bank account was partly sourced out of his agriculture income did not merit acceptance.
As regards the claim of the assessee that the cash deposits in question were sourced out of his past savings, I am of the considered view that though he had failed to place on record any material which would have evidenced the availability of any amount of cash in hand out of his past savings, but the A.O in all fairness had accepted his claim to the extent of Rs.1 lac, which thereafter had been raised by the CIT(Appeals) to an amount of Rs.3 lac. Considering the aforesaid fact, I find no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O that the assessee had failed to substantiate his claim that the entire amount of cash deposits in his bank account were sourced out of his past savings.
Apropos, the claim of the Ld. AR that the A.O had wrongly triggered the provisions of Section 69A of the Act as it was a case of cash deposit in bank account, I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to his said contention. Before proceeding any further I deem it fit to cull out the provisions of Section 69A of the Act, which reads as under:
“69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the
12 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.”
On a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, I find that in a case where the assessee is, inter alia, found to be owner of any money which is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of such money or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, then such money may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year under section 69A of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee had deposited the cash in his savings bank account. The aforesaid claim of the Ld. AR that as it was a case of a cash deposit in the bank account, therefore, the provisions of Section 69A of the Act could not have been brought into play, though, at the first blush appeared to be very convincing, but I am of the view that the said contention is not found to be in conformity with the mandate of law. As the assessee at the time of making the cash deposits in the bank account i.e. on 20/25.05.2011 was the owner of cash i.e. money, and had failed to come forth with any explanation about the nature and source of the acquisition of the same, therefore, no infirmity can be attributed to the invocation of
13 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
the provisions of Section 69A of the Act by the A.O. I, thus, finding no merit in the claim of the Ld. AR that the A.O had wrongly triggered the provisions of Section 69A of the Act for making the addition in the hands of the assessee, reject the same.
Apropos the claim of the Ld. AR that now when the A.O had observed that the cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account was the “on-money” that was received by him on sale of agriculture land, therefore, there was no justification for him to have triggered the provisions of Section 69A of the Act, I am unable to concur with the same. The A.O was of the view that as the assessee was an agriculturist who had no other source of income, therefore, considering the proximity of the period on which the cash deposits were made in his bank account as against the date of sale of land i.e. on 24.05.2011, it could safely be inferred that the amount in question in all probabilities was the “on money” which the assessee would have received pursuant to the aforesaid transaction of sale. Although, it is the claim of the Ld. AR before me that as the A.O had accepted that the cash deposits represents the unaccounted sale proceeds of agriculture land, therefore, he could not have adopted a view to the contrary and made an addition of the said amount u/s.69A of the Act, but the same does not find favour with me. I, say so, for the reason that as the assessee in the course of the
14 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
assessment proceedings had not come forward with any such explanation about the nature and source of the cash deposits, therefore, the A.O was constrained to make an addition of the said amount u/s.69A of the Act. My aforesaid view is fortified by the fact that an addition under section 69A in itself pre-supposes a condition that the assessee had either failed to offer any explanation; or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the A.O found to be satisfactory. Admittedly, in the present case, as the assessee had never come forth with any explanation that the cash deposit in question was the “on money” that was received by him on sale of agriculture land, therefore, the provisions of Section 69A in my considered view were rightly triggered by the A.O.
As I have rejected the claim of the Ld. AR that the cash deposits represents the unaccounted sale proceeds of agricultural land, therefore, there remains no occasion to deal with his contention that as the property sold by the assessee was a rural agriculture land, therefore, the amount received on the sale of the same was not exigible to tax at all. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had in all fairness restricted the addition in the hands of the assessee to an amount of Rs.7 lacs, uphold the same.
15 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Vs. ITO, Janjgir-Champa ITA No.176/RPR/2022
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in open court on 20th day of January, 2023
Sd/- (रवीश सूद /RAVISH SOOD) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 20th January, 2023 ***SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeals), Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // �नजी स�चव /Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur
