Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Smt. Anju Rani Aggarwal, Ludhiana vs Assessee on 3 March, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 43/Chd/2016
(Assessment Year : 2009-10)
Smt.Anju Rani Aggarwal Vs. The Income Tax Officer,
H.No.175-176, St.No.1, Ward IV (2),
Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana.
Ludhiana.
PAN: AGCPA1564D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : None
Respondent by : Shri S.K. Mittal, DR
Date of hearing : 02.03.2016
Date of Pronouncement : 03.03.2016
O R D E R
This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ludhiana dated 11.12.2015 for assessment year 2009-10, challenging the addition of Rs.3 lacs on account of income earned from undisclosed sources.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the return of income was filed at Rs.1,18,000/-. The source of income is stated to be tuitions on small scale. The Assessing Officer as per AIR information, noted that the assessee had made deposits of Rs.51.94 lacs in his saving bank account with Axis bank. The said bank account was jointly held by the assessee 2 with her husband Shri Parvinder Kumar. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the cash deposits in this bank account. On perusal of the bank statement, revealed that the assessee made deposits in cash and withdrawn the money through cheques in favour of M/s Religare Securities. The cash flow statement filed by the assessee was also perused by the Assessing Officer and on perusal of the cash flow statement, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had opening balance of Rs.3,30,000/-. The Assessing Officer further noted that the there was no cash in hand with the assessee as per return filed for assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had tuitions income on small scale and has treated that cash in hand of Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.3,30,000/-. Therefore, the addition of Rs.3 lacs was made on account of income earned from undisclosed sources.
3. The addition was challenged before the learned CIT (Appeals) and submissions of the assessee are reproduced in the impugned order in which the assessee briefly explained that she has been filing returns of income in earlier past many years, which have been accepted. The assessee filed cash flow statement because no books of account have been maintained. She had saving bank account with her husband. The copies of the income-tax returns for earlier years show that there were small incomes and out of the savings, cash was available to the assessee and apart from that, the assessee being lady, received certain cash and gifts from 3 relatives, which are in her possession as 'Istridhan'. Therefore, no addition is called for in this matter.
4. The learned CIT (Appeals) did not accept the contention of the assessee because the assessee failed to explain the opening balance of Rs.3,30,000/-. It was noted that the assessee claimed that she has filed returns for last years but at the same time, the assessee had left the column of opening balance blank in the return of income. The theory of 'Istridhan' was not accepted because no such evidence has been produced on record. The appeal of the assessee was accordingly, dismissed.
5. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 29.2.2016 and on the request of the learned counsel for the assessee the appeal was adjourned to 2.3.2016. However, on the date of hearing fixed for 2.3.2016, neither the assessee, nor any authorized representative of the assessee appeared to argue the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, decided ex-parte in the absence of the assessee.
6. I have heard the learned D.R. and perused the findings of the authorities below. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny because huge cash deposits were found in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee tried to explain the same through cash flow statement and in the cash flow statement filed before the Assessing Officer, the assessee admitted opening balance of cash deposits in a sum of Rs.3,30,000/-. The assessee was confronted with the return 4 of income for preceding assessment year 2008-09, in which the assessee declared income at Rs.1,10,000/- and according to the same, there were no cash in hand available to the assessee. The assessee was admittedly filing returns of income for earlier years below the taxable limit. Therefore, the accumulation of cash with the assessee was not supported by any evidence or material on record. Even before the learned CIT (Appeals), the assessee took a general statement of availability of the cash having cash and gifts received from relatives on account of 'Istridhan' but the statement of the assessee was not supported by any evidence or material on record. Thus, the assessee miserably failed to explain the opening cash balance of Rs.3 lacs. The assessee did not file any evidence or material before the Tribunal till date in support of the grounds of appeal raised. Therefore, it is difficult to interfere with the findings of the authorities below. I, therefore, confirm the addition of Rs.3 lacs and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 3rd
day of March, 2016.
Sd/-
(BHAVNESH SAINI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 3 r d March, 2016
*Rati*
Copy to: The Appellant/The Respondent/The CIT(A)/The CIT/The DR.
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh 5