Sh. Deepak Bansal, Shahabad v. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 804/CHANDI/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 80421514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AHEPB4147Q
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 804/CHANDI/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Deepak Bansal, Shahabad
Respondent ITO, Kurukshetra
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 23-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 21-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 21-11-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 12-08-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 804/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI DEEPAK BANSAL VS THE ITO PROP BANSAL SALES CORPN. WARD-2 SHAHBAD KURUKSHETRA PAN NO. AHEPB4147Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2011 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) KARNAL DATED 13.6.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) KARNAL HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKHS BEING THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN BANK BY APPELLANT FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME DESP ITE OF FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS OWNER OF AGRICULTURA L LAND AND PRODUCED NECESSARY EVIDENCE DURING ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) KARNAL HAS ERRED BY NOT GIV ING THE BENEFIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN OF RS. 1 84 2 00/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKHS WHICH HAS BEEN DECLA RED IN THE RETURN BY APPELLANT AND ACCEPTED BY ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRADING BUSINESS OF CEMENT SARIA ETC. ON EXAMI NATION OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATI ONAL BANK SHAHBAD THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT FOLLOWING CASH DEP OSITS WERE MADE IN THE BANK. I) 23.1.2007 RS. 1 50 000/- II) 30.1.2007 RS. 1 50 000/- ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THERE WAS NO SUC H ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE THEREFORE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO E XPLAIN THE FACTS IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE OWNED A GRICULTURAL INCOME MEASURING 5 ACRES AND THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF SALE OF POTATO CROPS FOR RS. 3 25 000/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT THERE WAS CASH IN HAND OF RS. 2 91 710/- ON 23.1.2007 WHICH WAS T AKEN TO BE UTILIZED FOR DEPOSIT OF THIS AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY PROOF OF RECEIPT OF RS. 3 25 000/- FROM SALE OF POTATO CROP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO OWN 5 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM WHICH HE HA S RETURNED NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1 84 200/- AND AGAIN CLA IMED RECEIPT OF RS. 3 25 000/- FROM SALE OF POTATO CROP TO JUSTIFY THE DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS. 3 LAKHS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OP INED THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO SAVE RS. 3 25 000/- FROM THE PRODUCE FR OM 5 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN 3 TO 5 MONTHS IN SHAHBAD ARE A IN THE YEAR 2006-07 3 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSES SING OFFICER THEREFORE HELD THAT THIS THEORY IS AN AFTER THOUGH T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 15.12.2009 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT CERTAIN INFORMATION. IN RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL CROP OF POTATO WAS SOLD AT RS. 3 25 000/- OUT OF THIS RECEIPT HE HAS ALREADY DEPOSITED RS. 3 LAKHS IN PNB SHAHBAD. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE THEREFORE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKS. 4. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION O BSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.08 TO VERIFY THE FACTS THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT R ECORD IS REFERRED TO. TWO COPIES OF KHASRA GIRDAWARI AVAILA BLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD ONE IS IN THE NAME OF BAS HRAH SADAR AND THE OTHER ONE IS IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT BUT THE SAME IS W.R.T. THE KHARIS CROP 2008 AND RAVI CR OP 2009 AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT AS SUCH HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER ON R ECORD TO ESTABLISH OF GROWING THE CROP OF POTATO AND RECE IPT OF RS. 3 25 000/- FROM SALE THEREOF. THE APPELLANT AL READY DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 84 200/- WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS IT I S HELD THAT THE ENTIRE EFFORTS OF CLAIM OF HAVING AGRICULT URAL INCOME OF RS. 3.25 LACS FROM SALE OF POTATO CROPS W AS CARRIED OUT TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS. 3 LACS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HOWEVER FAILED T O ESTABLISH THIS CLAIM AND HENCE IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 1.5 LAKHD EACH ON 23.1.2007 AND 30.1.2007 IN HIS BA NK ACCOUNT AND HENCE THE SAME IS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED A ND ADDITION THEREOF MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS H EREBY CONFIRMED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS AS SUCH REJECT ED. 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI AJAY JAIN LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE AND SHRI AKLIESH GUPTA LD. DR AT LENGTH AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED THAT HE IS OWNER OF 5 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND VIDE REPLY DATED 14.12 .2009 BUT BY OVERWRITING THE SAME WAS MADE 15 ACRES IN THE REPLY FILED ON 22.12.2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT IN FIR D GIRDAWARI LATER ON POTATO WAS ADDED NEXT TO PADDY AND WHEAT THATS TOO INDIFFERENT HANDWRITING. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THE GROWING CROPS OF POTATO AND RECEIPT OF RS. 3 25 000/- FROM SALES THEREOF. IN OUR VIEW BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF GROWING CROP OF POTATO AND RECEIPT OF RS. 3 25 0 00/- FROM SALES THEREOF. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THIS OBSERVATION OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VERY SURE ABOUT THIS STORY BE CAUSE HE HAS GIVEN OTHER ALTERNATIVE ALSO. THE NEXT PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSES SEE WAS THAT THERE WAS CASH IN HAND OF RS. 2 91 710/- ON 23.1.2007. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LAK HS WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK OUT OF CASH IN HAND. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE SOURCES OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. CONSIDERING THE E NTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WE DO NOT SEE AN Y MERIT IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL. 6. HOWEVER VIDE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL THE ASS ESSEE HAS TAKEN AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA TO THIS EFFECT THAT HE HAS ALREADY SHOWN RS. 1 84 200/- AS HIS NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE INCOME TAX RETUR N FILED FOR THE YEAR ATLEAST THE UTILIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO T HAT EXTENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SINCE THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT UTILIZE 5 THE SAME FOR OTHER PURPOSES DURING THE YEAR. IN OU R VIEW THERE IS A MERIT IN THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACC ORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 84 200/- WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT THE SAME IN THE BANK. IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE DESER VES THE BENEFIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1 84 200/- OUT OF ADDITI ON OF RS. 3 LAKHS WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 1 84 200/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY AS INDIC ATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 23 RD NOVEMBER 2011 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR