SHRI KULDIP SINGH S/O SHRI PARKASH SINGH,SAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar dated
28.12.2018 in respect of AY 2010-11 challenging therein levy of penalty u/s
2 I.T.A. No. 374/Asr/2019 Kuldip Singh v. ITO 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash
deposit in bank.
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the
appellant assessee is an agriculturist. In the quantum appeal, the ld. CIT(A)
has given direction to the AO as regards the addition of Rs.3,50,000/-
made on account of unexplained investment with M/s Bajaj Allianz
Insurance Co. Ltd. that the AO should verify the amount of investment of
Rs.3,50,000/- deposited on 27.09.2009 and 09.09.2009 in its bank account
as it has been shown transfer to Bajaj Allianz LIC was whether against
these amounts Insurance Policies has been issued in the name of said
person.
While giving appeal effect to the order of the ld. CIT(A), the ld. AO
was although satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that the
deposits were made by Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Sh. Angrej Singh.
However, he was not convinced with the explanation whether the policies
issued in these names by M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. The ld. CIT(A)
has held that the assessee was an agent of M/s Bajaj Allianz LIC and he
has a running account with M/s Allianz. However, the assessee has failed
to establish the news to the effect that Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Sh. Angrej
3 I.T.A. No. 374/Asr/2019 Kuldip Singh v. ITO Singh were the beneficiary of policies who have deposited Rs.3,50,000/- in
the bank account of the assessee. The ld. AR argued that Ms.. Amandeep
Kaur and Sh. Angrej Singh had deposited the disputed cash in the bank
account of the appellant Sh. Kuldip Singh, LIC agent for the purpose of
investment in LIC policies. The ld. CIT(A) has further noted that on a
perusal of the bank account along with the statement of M/s Bajaj Allianz. It
is fairly ascertained that the assessee was regularly making deposits with
M/s Bajaj Allianz, as evident from the copy of the bank statement of the
alleged Bank Account No. 665010100006897 for the period under
consideration from 10.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 which is reproduced as
under:
4 I.T.A. No. 374/Asr/2019 Kuldip Singh v. ITO
5 I.T.A. No. 374/Asr/2019 Kuldip Singh v. ITO 4. From the above, it is evident that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was
deposited by Ms. Amandeep Kaur in two parts with a break up of
Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.08.2009 and 09.09.2009 respectively and similarly the
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited by Sh. Angrej Singh Sandhu on
09.09.2009 which has been transferred to Bajaj Allianz LIC on 09.09.2009.
Thus, the sources of the disputed amount of Rs.3,50,000/- stand explained
from the bank statement as being deposited by Ms. Amandeep Kaur and
Sh. Angrej Singh Sandhu. In our view, the AO and the ld. CIT(A) ought to
have verified from the M/s Bajaj Allianz LIC the fact whether the policies
were issued towards the said amount deposited to its account or should
have verified from Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Sh. Angrej Singh Sandhu who
deposited the amount in the appellants bank account. Meaning thereby the
allegations of the authorities below that the assessee have failed to related
to Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Sh. Angrej Singh were the beneficiary of the
policies by whom Rs.3,50,000/- was deposited in the bank account of the
assessee to hold that the said amount is unexplained investment is not
justified. In view of the matter, the source of cash deposit stand explained
from the bank statement itself as above, being deposited by the Ms.
Amandeep Kaur and Sh. Angrej Singh and the same cannot be hold to be
unexplained investment based on presumption and assumption in the
6 I.T.A. No. 374/Asr/2019 Kuldip Singh v. ITO absence of the corroborative evidences to disprove the documentary
evidences available on record. The ld. DR has failed to rebut the contention
of ld. DR on the source of the cash deposit being investment of third parties
in M/s Bajaj Allianz. Thus, it is apparently clear that there was no
concealment of income by the appellant assessee. Accordingly, we hold
that the order of ld. CIT(A) is infirm and perverse to the facts on the record
in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
In the above view, we accept the grievance of the assessee as
genuine considering the peculiar facts of the case. We, therefore, quashed
the impugned order and levy of such, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of
Rs.108,150/- is deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06.06.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr./P.S.* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent
7 I.T.A. No. 374/Asr/2019 Kuldip Singh v. ITO (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order
