Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, J.M.:
The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2,Amritsar, [in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] bearing appeal No.226/2014-15, date of order 27.03.2017, order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2006-07.The impugned & 334/Asr/2017 2 Assessment Year.: 2006-07 order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3), Amritsar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3)/147/148 of the Act date of order 30.03.2014. The assessee has taken the following grounds which reads as under: “1. That the Ld.CIT(A)-2, Amritsar has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 17,70,000 being the amount of deposits in the Bank.
2. That the Ld.CIT(A)-2, Amritsar has erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs.17,70,000 made r. the AO u/s 68 of the Act being the amount of deposits in the Bank which is beyond jurisdiction and is void ab initio. 3 That the order is bad in law and on facts.
4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.”
2. The assessee is an ex- employee of the Indian Railway. The assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 on basis of the information for depositing cash in the bank account during the financial year 2005-06. The total cash was deposited to Rs.17,70,000/- in the bank account of the assessee which was unexplained before the ld. AO and the total amount was added back u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee & 334/Asr/2017 3 Assessment Year.: 2006-07 being aggrieved and filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO after a detailed discussion of the assessee’s submission.
3. Aggrieved against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before us.
During the hearing the assessee was called for hearing Mr. Ashwani Kalia, CA, was appeared and filed his withdrawal of power of attorney and informed that he will no more appear in this case. The matter was long pending and different dates were allowed for the hearing. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is taken for hearing in ex parte qua. After hearing the submission of the ld. Sr. DR, the case is adjudicated accordingly.
The ld. Sr. DR first relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) pages 6 to 7, the relevant para are extracted as below:
“Decision:- The assessee had three bank accounts namely (i) A/c no. 4270 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Batala Road Amritsar, (ii) A/c no. 1087 with Bank of India, Amritsar and (iii) A/c no. 9500 with PNB, Putlighar, Amritsar. The total of cash deposits in the said bank accounts as detailed in the assessment order during F Y 2005-06 was Rs 17,70,000/-. The AO did not allow any credit for the cash accruals from the year 1994-95 as the assessee had not shown any direct nexus with & 334/Asr/2017 4 Assessment Year.: 2006-07 cash deposits made during the year 2005-06 and it was unbelievable that assessee would keep cash at home for such long time. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee that cash credits represented sales from retail business of cloth as no debits in respect of purchase are there. Therefore, the cash deposits had remained unexplained. Therefore, the AO added back all the credits totalling to Rs 17,70,000/- to the total income u/s 68. On merits the assessee stated that the appellant was the owner and in possession of agriculture land measuring 3 Acres 8 Kanals and 2 Marlas. The said land was agreed to be sold vide agreement dated 02-04-1994 to M/s Sharma and Gangadhar Builders and colonizers P. Ltd, SCO -5, S.G Enclave, Naushara, Majitha Road Amritsar through their associate builders for a total consideration of Rs 39.5 Lacs wrongly taken as Rs 3.85 Lacs by the AO. Out of the said sum, Rs 17.7 Lacs was deposited in the bank accounts. In this regard the appellant had not furnished any details of the mode and date of receipt of the sale consideration of agriculture land claimed to be Rs 39.5 Lacs. Therefore, the claim of deposit of Rs 17.7 lacs in the bank accounts out of the sale consideration of agriculture land claimed to be Rs 39.5 Lacs is not established due to lack of evidence.
& 334/Asr/2017 5 Assessment Year.: 2006-07
Further that the appellant received a sum of Rs 546,441/- in November 1997 as retirement benefit from the Railways which was deposited in the bank account in the year 1997. The appellant had not furnished the copy of bank passbook of F. Y. 1997-98 to show the receipt of retirement benefits in the bank account in F. Y. 1997-98 and cash withdrawals there from. Moreover, the appellant had not stated the total amount of retirement benefits received by him from the Indian Railways in 1997 and the mode of receipt thereof.
The assessee had also stated that as per the agreement with the purchaser (colonizer) the registries of the properties were to be made as and when the said properties in the shape of plots were further sold by the purchaser after development of the colony. The appellant stated that the total payment on account of sale receipt of properties continued to be received in instalments till 2005-06 and were deposited in his bank account. That out of the said deposits the assessee gave a loan of Rs 5 Lacs to one to Gurnam Singh on 14-01-2006 by cheque. The appellant had however not furnished even single evidence of receipt of sale consideration of the said properties in the shape of plots, the mode of receipt of sale consideration, the amount of sale consideration received piecemeal, the date of receipt and the evidence of sale of such plots.
& 334/Asr/2017 6 Assessment Year.: 2006-07
Moreover in the appeal proceedings the undersigned had issued summons u/s 131(1) dated 08-03-2017 to M/s Sharma and Gangadhar Builders and colonizers P Ltd, SCO -5, S.G Enclave, Naushara, Majitha Road Amritsar and required the following details from the builder by 20-03-2017:-
“You had entered into an agreement to sell with Sh Ranbir Singh Datta vide agreement to sell dated 02-04-1994 for purchase of his share of agriculture land measuring 26 Kanal and 8 Marla in Rakba Rakh Sikkar, Gah Tehsil and District Amritsar whose translated copy is enclosed. You had paid Rs 3.85 Lacs to Sh Ranbir Singh Datta by 20-05-1994 and the balance amount of sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registry of the land.
You are requested to explain the dates when the pieces of the said land were sold by you and the amount of sale consideration received by you on each sale transaction and the amount of sale consideration which was handed over by you to the seller Sh Ranbir Singh Datta with dates. Also produce the copies of all such sale deeds.
& 334/Asr/2017 7 Assessment Year.: 2006-07 However, till the passing of this order there was no compliance from M/s Sharma and Gangadhar Builders and colonizers P Ltd, Amritsar to the said notice u/s 131 of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the total payment on account of sale receipt of properties continued to be received by him in instalments till 2005-06 from the said builder and colonizer was not established in absence of reply and evidence from the said builder and colonizer.”
We heard the submission of the revenue and considered the orders of both the revenue authorities. The assessee was the employee of the Indian Railway and nature of income was salary. The cash was deposited in different dates in bank account but the assessee was unable to explain the same before the ld. AO. Before the ld. CIT(A), the explanation was filed that source of deposit is related to sale of agricultural land. But the assessee was unable to bring the evidence before the ld. CIT(A) and not able to take any cognizance material to substantiate its source of cash deposit in bank account. In ITAT, the assessee reluctant to submit the relevant evidence before the bench, we find that the assessee was fully non cooperative from the end of completion of appeal proceeding. There is no substantial evidence for depositing cash in the bank account submitted on behalf of the assessee.
Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. & 334/Asr/2017 8 Assessment Year.: 2006-07
Although, is related to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which is consequential in nature. The same penalty is confirmed as the quantum appeal is confirmed accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing & 334/Asr/2017 are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on20.12.2022