Anil Jain, Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3611/DEL/2012 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 361120114 RSA 2012
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3611/DEL/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant Anil Jain, Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 04-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 08-08-2013
Next Hearing Date 08-08-2013
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 10-07-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI SHRI I. C. SUDHIR JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3611/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004- 2005 ANIL JAIN VS. INCOM E TAX OFFICER H. NO. 2773/246 WARD-37(1) TRI NAGAR DELHI 110 035 NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJIV GAWRI CA RESPONDENT BY : MRS . RENUKA JAIN GUPTA SR. DR ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELL ATE ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- A) ACTION OF THE AO AFFIRMED BY CIT( A) XXVIII IN ADDING BACK RS. 150000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS UNJUST ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE. B) THE INCOME OF FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM S.J. CAPITAL LIMITED ALREADY DISCLO SED BY HIM IN HIS RESPECTIVE INCOME TAX RETURNS HAS AGAIN BEEN WRONGL Y ADDED BACK AND TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESEE SHRI ANIL J AIN 2. HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANC ED BY THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT A N AMOUNT OF RS. 1 50 000/- RELATED TO FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAM KUMAR JA IN HAS BEEN WRONGLY ITA NO. 3611/DEL/2012 2 TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR IN THIS REGARD REMAINED THAT INCOME OF FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM M/S. S.J. CAPITAL LIMITED ALREADY DISCLOSED BY HIM IN HIS RESPECTIVE INCOME TAX RETURN HAS AGAIN B EEN WRONGLY ADDED BACK AND TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING JOINT SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH HIS FATHER AND IN THE SAID JOINT SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NA ME OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE COMES FIRST. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT CHE QUES FOR RS. 69 192/- AND RS. 80 808/- WERE RECEIVED FROM M/S. S.J. CAPIT AL LTD. A COMPANY ENGAGED IN STOCK BROKING AND INVESTMENT IN SHARES B Y SHRI RAM KUMAR JAIN AGAINST DEALING WITH SHARES MADE BY HIM THUS THE B ENEFICIARY IS SHRI RAM KUMAR JAIN AND NOT THE ASSESEE. CHEQUES WERE HOWEVE R ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCO UNT. 4. LD. AR REFERRED PAGE NO. 16 TO 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK I.E. COPIES OF AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAM KUMAR JAIN HIS STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IN RELATION TO M/S. S.J. CAPITAL LTD. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HIS RET URN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME HIS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2003 AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05 ALONGWITH COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOM E. THE LD. SR. DR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. SHE SUBMITTED THAT MONEY DOES NOT HAVE DIFFERENT COLOUR FOR DIFFERENT PERSONS. HENCE MERE SAYING THAT THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE J OINT BANK OF ACCOUNT ITA NO. 3611/DEL/2012 3 BY CHEQUE IN THE NAME OF ASSESEE ACTUALLY BELONGS T O THE INCOME OF FATHER OF THE ASSESEE IS NOT ENOUGH. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION I FIND T HAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE CHEQUES AMOUNTING TO RS. 69 102/- AND RS. 80 80 8/- WERE ISSUED BY M/S. S.J. CAPITAL LTD. IN FAVOUR OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THESE CHEQUES ISSUED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND CREDITED IN THE JOINT SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS IN THE NAME OF HIS FATHER SHRI RAM KUMAR JAIN AND THE ASSESSEE I.E. SH RI ANIL JAIN WERE ACTUALLY MEANT FOR HIS FATHER AND INCOME OF HIS FAT HER. THE FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED THAT THIS INCOM E WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF HIS FATHER FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AN AFFIDAVIT OF HIS FATHER WAS ALSO FILED TO THIS EFFECT. SINCE SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF RS. 69 192/- AND RS. 80 808/- HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME ATTACHED WITH RETURN OF INCOM E FILED BY SHRI RAM KUMAR JAIN IN MY VIEW THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE R IGHTLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE AMOUNTS FOR WHICH CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY M/S. S.J. CAPITAL LTD. IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY INCOME OF SHRI RA M KUMAR JAIN HIS FATHER. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH NEX US BETWEEN THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE SHOWN IN THE CHEQUES ISSUED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE THAT WITH THE INCOME OF HIS FATHER SHRI R.K. JAIN I AM OF THE VI EW THAT THE AUTHORITY BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. ITA NO. 3611/DEL/2012 4 THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAM KUMAR JAIN SUPPORTING THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE H AS ALSO RIGHTLY BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE GROUNDS ARE ACCORDI NGLY REJECTED. 6. CONSEQUENTLY APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH OCTOBER 2013. SD/- ( I.C. SUDHIR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 4 TH OCTOBER 2013 *VEENA COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT