Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Sri Sushil Sarkar, Siliguri vs Dcit, Cir-2, Matigara, Siliguri, ... on 19 April, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A", BENCH KOLKATA
BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
IT(SS)A No.105/Kol/2015
( नधा रण वष /Assessment Year:2012-2013)
Sri Sushil Sarkar, Vs. DCIT/Cir-2,
C/o S.L.Agarwal(Advocate), Aayakar Bhawan,
33, M.G.Road, Khalpara, Matigara,
Siliguri-734005 Siliguri-734010
थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No.: ALTPS 0270 N
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate
Revenue by : Shri R.S.Biswal,CIT
सन
ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 01/03/2017
घोषणा क तार ख/Date of Pronouncement 19/04/2017
आदे श / O R D E R
Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-2013, is directed against the order passed by ld. CIT(A), Siliguri, in appeal No. 10 and 11 and 12/CIT(A)/SLG/2014-15, dated 24.07.2015, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) Under Section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), dated 05.03.2014.
2. In case of the assessee under consideration an information was received from (ATU) Air Intelligence unit, Bagdogra that on 25.09.2011 two passenger namely Sushil Sarkar and Shri Parijat Dhar were travelling by Spice Jet flight from Bagdogra Airport to Kolkata on 25/09/2011, carrying together total cash of Rs.34.00 lakhs. They were intercepted at Kolkata Airport. During interrogation, assessee admitted that entire cash of Rs.34.00 lakhs belonged to him. The case was subsequently converted to a search action u/s. 132 of the Act and a sum of Rs.31.00 lakhs was 2 IT(SS)A No.105/15 Sri Sushil Sarkar seized. Out of the cash found of Rs.34.00 lakhs, the assessee disclosed Rs.9.00 lakhs as his brokerage income in the return for A.Y. 2012-13. However, the AO considered the entire amount of Rs.34.00 lakhs as assessee`s undisclosed income and added the balance amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs in the A.Y. 2012-13.
3. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 7,50,000/- out of total addition made by AO at Rs. 25,00,000/-. The ld CIT (A) observed that the assessee received Rs. 7,50,000/- from shree Biplab Deb & Others as advance towards sale of land admeasuring 2.52 acres including tea planation, vide Notarized Deed, dated 12/09/2011. The assessee explained in his statement dated 25/09/2011 that he received advance towards sale of a tea garden. The assessee received the said cash a few days before the search. The said transaction was duly notarized and the payee had confirmed the transaction therefore, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.7,50,000/-
Regarding Rs. 13,00,000/- the assessee first stated that the money was received by him from a broker named Shri Dhiraj Ghosh. When Shri Dhiraj Ghosh denied having paid any money to the appellant, then assessee changed his statement and said that he received the said money from Shri Biplab Deb on behalf of Smt. Rita Roy. When Shri Biplab Deb stated that he paid Rs. 13.00 lakhs directly to Smt. Rita Roy before the Notary Sri Nabendu Narayan Dutta, then again the assessee stated that after receiving the amount of Rs.13.00 lakhs from Shri Biplab Deb on 3 IT(SS)A No.105/15 Sri Sushil Sarkar 12/09/2011, Smt. Rita Roy handed over the cash to him and that money he was carrying with him on 25/09/2011. The Assessing Officer, rightly did not believe either of the version as those were contradictory to each other. The Assessing Officer also rightly rejected the version of Smt. Rita Roy stated in his letter dated 21/10/2013 that an advance of Rs.13.00 lakhs was received on her behalf by the assessee from Shri Biplab Deb, as she herself received the said amount from Shri Deb. In view of such, circumstances, the ld CIT(A) held that Smt Rita Roy's cash of Rs.13.00 lakhs was not a part of Rs.34.00 lakhs found from the possession of the assessee, therefore ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.13 lakhs. Regarding Rs.4,50,000/-, the assessee tried to explain that it is out of cash in hand of Rs.4,76,072/- as on 01.04.2011, as per balance sheet on 31.03.2011. The ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 19/10/2011, i.e. after the date of search. The assessee has tried to adjust Rs. 4,50,000/- by way of filing the Balance Sheet after the date of search. The assessee did not explain this fact in the statement taken by the search party during the search U/s 132 of the Act. The Balance Sheet filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) was neither signed nor acknowledged. The ld CIT (A) further observed the assessee filed the Balance Sheet during appeal proceedings perhaps to justify the source of a portion of cash he was carrying on 25/09/2011. In any case the assessee never said that he was carrying cash in hand in the statement recorded under oath at the time of search. In the statement recorded under oath at the time of search the assessee categorically stated that the source of entire cash of Rs.34.00 was advance received for sale of a tea garden, therefore the ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.4,50,000/-
4IT(SS)A No.105/15
Sri Sushil Sarkar This way, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.(13,00,000 + 4,50,000), 17,50,000/-.
4. Not being satisfied with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us and has taken the following grounds of appeal :-
1. For that, the appellate order passed by Ld. C.IT (A) was defective on the ground that the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that, out of the undisclosed income of Rs. 25,00,000/-, the assessee was owing Rs. 4,50,000/- as his cash in hand and the assessee was further carrying Rs. 13,00,000/ - owned by one Smt. Rita Roy, who received as advance against sale of his agricultural land. In spite of filling necessary evidence on account of Rs.4,50,000/- the CIT (A) failed to give any reason for not allowing relief on this two heads. Thus the Ld. CIT (A) makes a mistake in not allowing the relief Rs. 17,50,000/- of undisclosed income of Rs. 25,00,000/- as added by the AO.
2. For that the Assessee prays that a further relief of Rs.
17,50,000/- may kindly be granted from the undisclosed income as taken by the AO amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/-.
3. For that the Assessee craves leave to add, alter and modify any of this aforesaid ground of appeal on or before the appeal.
5. Ld. AR for the assessee has primarily reiterated the same arguments as done before the ld CIT(A) and Ld DR for the Revenue relied on the assessment order made by the assessing officer. Having heard both the parties, we noticed that ld AR for the assessee did not bring any cogent evidence to prove that the additions confirmed by the ld CIT(A) are not justified. Regarding Rs. 13,00,000/- the assessee first stated that the money was received by him from a broker named Shri Dhiraj Ghosh. When Shri Dhiraj Ghosh denied having paid any money to the appellant, then assessee changed his statement and said that he received the said money from Shri Biplab Deb on behalf of Smt. Rita Roy. When Shri Biplab Deb stated that he paid Rs. 13.00 lakhs directly to Smt. Rita Roy before the Notary Sri Nabendu Narayan Dutta, then again the assessee stated 5 IT(SS)A No.105/15 Sri Sushil Sarkar that after receiving the amount of Rs.13.00 lakhs from Shri Biplab Deb on 12/09/2011, Smt. Rita Roy handed over the cash to him. Considering these factual circumstances, we are of the view that addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld CIT (A), is justified. Regarding Rs.4,50,000/-, the assessee tried to explain that it is out of cash in hand of Rs.4,76,072/- as on 01.04.2011, as per balance sheet on 31.03.2011. The assessee has tried to adjust Rs. 4,50,000/- by way of filing the Balance Sheet after the date of search. The Balance Sheet filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) was neither signed nor acknowledged. In any case the assessee never said that he was carrying cash in hand in the statement recorded under oath at the time of search. In the statement recorded under oath at the time of search the assessee categorically stated that the source of entire cash of Rs.34.00 was advance received for sale of a tea garden, hence considering the factual position we confirm the addition made by ld CIT(A) at Rs. 4,50,000/-.
Therefore, we confirm the addition made by ld CIT(A) of Rs. 13,00,000/- and Rs. 4,50,000/- as explained above.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee, is dismissed Order pronounced in the open court on this 19/04/2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N.V.VASUDEVAN) (DR. A.L.SAINI)
या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
कोलकाता /Kolkata; दनांक Dated 19/04/2017
काश $म&ा/Prakash Mishra,Sr.PS.
6
IT(SS)A No.105/15
Sri Sushil Sarkar
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant-Sri Sushil Sarkar
2. यथ / The Respondent.- DCIT, Circle-2, Matigara, Siliguri
3. आयकर आय0 ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Kolkata.
4. आयकर आयु0त / CIT
5. 1वभागीय 4त4न5ध, आयकर अपील य अ5धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata ु ार/ आदे शानस BY ORDER,
6. गाड8 फाईल / Guard file.
स या1पत 4त //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार
(Asstt. Registrar)
आयकर अपील$य अ%धकरण, कोलकाता / ITAT, Kolkata