Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Dr. Sk. Wajid Ali, Kolkata vs Assessee
आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, Ûयायपीठ - " SMC ", कोलकाता,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH : KOLKATA
(सम¢)Before ौी डȣ.
डȣ. के. ×यागी,
×यागी, Ûयायीक सदःय,)
[Before Hon'ble Sri D. K. Tyagi, JM)
आयकर अपील संÉया / I.T.A No. 1576/Kol/2010
िनधॉरण वषॅ/Assessment Year : 2005-06
Dr. Sk. Wajid Ali -Vs- Joint Commissioner of Income-tax,
(PA No.ACHPA 2324 G) Range-16, Kolkata.
(अपीलाथȸ/APPELLANT ) (ू×यथȸ/RESPONDENT)
For the Appellant : Sri R. N. Ram
For the Respondent Sri R. K. Paul
आदे श/ORDER
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata dated 16.07.2010 for assessment year 2005-06 on the following grounds :
"1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,08,000/- made by the Assessing Officer out of deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- made with Allahabad Bank, C,.R. Avenue branch, Kolkata as income from undisclosed sources whereas the entire sum of Rs.2,00,000/-deposited in the bank a/c was out of sale proceeds of ancestral agricultural land at Sikandarpur, Balia (UP) whereas the entire sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was sale proceeds of agricultural land and only Rs.92,000/- was disclosed in the deed of registration and whereas all the relevant papers and document in respect of agricultural land and details of sale proceeds including an affidavit sworn in by his brother Mr. Subhan Allah were submitted before the CIT(A) in course of appeal proceeding.
2. That on the fact and the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the sum of Rs.1,08,000/- as income from undisclosed sources whereas the source of deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- in the appellants bank account was explained to have come from account payee bank draft sent by his brother from sale proceeds of agricultural land at Sikandarpur, Balia (UP) being the appellant's share of money received through banking channel and whereas in the deed of registration the sale proceeds was disclosed at Rs.92,000/- for the purpose of stamp duty.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee while giving effect to his order in respect of deduction u/s. 80DDB whereas the Assessing Officer allowed deduction u/s. 80DDB to the extent of Rs.40,000/- only whereas for senior citizen the deduction is available at Rs.60,000/- and whereas the CIT(A) should have clearly directed the Assessing Officer to give deduction at Rs.60,000/- as the appellant was senior citizen during the relevant year,.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee while giving effect to his order in respect of deduction u/s. 80D whereas the 2 Assessing Officer allowed deduction u/s. 80DD to the extent of Rs.12,000/- only whereas for senior citizen the deduction is available at Rs.15,000/- and whereas the CIT(A) should have clearly directed the Assessing Officer to give residence at Rs.15,000/- as the appellant was senior citizen during the relevant year."
2. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 relate to confirmation of addition of Rs.1,08,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. Briefly stated facts of this issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, on enquiry, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee was the holder of SB A/c No. 5777 with Allahabad Bank, C. R. Avenue Branch. The account was not disclosed by the assessee. On verification of the Bank statement, as obtained from the concerned bank by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the I. T. Act, 1961, it was found that on 4.5.2004 Rs.2,00,000/- was credited in the A/c. by clearing. The assessee was asked to explain the source and nature of the amount. In his written statement filed on 24.12.2007 the assessee stated that he received the money from his brother by Bank Draft being hi share of sale proceeds of ancestral agricultural land at Sikandarpur, Balia. The assessee filed photocopy of one sale deed of the land. On perusal of the sale deed it was seen that the sale proceed was Rs.92,000/- only. Then the assessee was again asked to explain the nature & source of excess amount of Rs.1,08,000/-. The assesee could not furnish any explanation for this discrepancy. In absence of any explanation, the Assessing Officer treated Rs.1,08,000/- as unexplained and added it in the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed source. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is now in appeal before us.
3. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee while reiterating his same submissions as submitted before the lower authorities further submitted that the assessee owns ancestral agricultural land at Sikandarpur, Dist Balia (UP). The land was sold and his brother sent an account payee bank draft amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- being his share of sale proceeds, though in the registration deed the value was disclosed only Rs.92,000/-. The said bank draft was deposited on 4.5.2005 in the appellant bank A/c. No. 5777 with Allahabad Bank, C. R. Avenue Branch. The Assessing Officer admitted the transaction and also the fact that ancestral agricultural land was sold but he made an addition of Rs.1,08,000/- being income from undisclosed sources. He also contended that it is fact that in the deed of registration the value of agricultural land sold was disclosed at Rs.92,000/- but it is also fact that the assessee received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by account payee draft as sale consideration of his 3 share of agricultural land. The source of deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- in the bank account by account payee draft on 4.5.2004 was duly explained. The statute has not provided any provision by virtue of which the exempted income has to be disclosed in the return of income or there is no compulsion of disclosure of such bank account where such income has been deposited. He also contended that the agricultural land is not capital assets u/s. 2(14)(iii). The sale proceeds of such agricultural land is not chargeable to income tax u/s. 45. The onus has duly been discharged by the assessee by explaining the source of deposit of bank draft amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-. He, therefore, urged before the bench to deleted the addition so sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).
4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
5. After hearing the rival submissions and carefully perusing the material available on record, I find that while confirming the action of the Assessing Officer the Ld. CIT(A) has held as under :
"I have considered the above submission of the assessee. I have also examined the affidavit of the assessee's brother. It is seen that the assesee is trying to claim that he sold his undivided share in the ancestral land to his brother for Rs.2 lakh but in the registered deed, only Rs.92,000/- was recorded in order to save on the stamp duty. I feel that this argument of the assessee and the affidavit filed by his brother in this regard are self-serving as they are contradictory to a legal document which has been executed by them. The assessee cannot be allowed to make contradictory statements before two different Govt. authorities and get away by deriving benefit from both the authorities. If in the registered deed for the sale of the land the sale proceed is shown as Rs.92,000/- it has to be taken at this amount for income tax purposes also. Therefore, I agree with the Assessing Officer that the source of the remaining amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.2 lakh deposited in the bank account of the assessee remains unexplained. Therefore, this amount of Rs.1,08,000/- has to be treated as unexplained cash credit and added under the provisions of the I. T. Act, 1961 as the total income of the assessee. In view of the above discussion, I confirm this addition made by the Assessing Officer."
Since at the time of hearing before us, the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncontroverted by producing any cogent material/evidence, we do not find any necessity to interfere with his order and the same is hereby upheld. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are, therefore, dismissed.
6. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 are in respect of deduction u/s. 80DDB and 80D. The assessee had claimed that the deductions should be allowed up to the amounts provided for the senior citizens. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify this claim of the assesee while giving effect to his order and allow the deduction 4 after determining the correct position. After hearing both the parties, I find that the Ld. CIT(A) just gave direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and allow the deduction as per law. I feel no need to interfere with his order and the same is hereby upheld. These grounds of appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
8. Order is pronounced in the open court on 24.9.10 Sd/-
डȣ. के. ×यागी, Ûयायीक सदःय (D. K. Tyagi) Judicial Member (तारȣख) तारȣख) Dated : 24th September, 2010 वǐरƵ िनǔज सिचव Jd.(Sr.P.S.) आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषतः- Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. अपीलाथȸ/APPELLANT - Dr. Sk. Wajid Ali, 65, Colootola Street, Kolkata-73.
2 ू×यथȸ/ Respondent, JCIT, Range-16, Kolkata.
3. आयकर किमशनर/The CIT,
4. आयकर किमशनर (अपील)/The CIT(A), Kolkata
5. वभािगय ूितनीधी / DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata स×याǒपत ूित/True Copy, आदे शानुसार/ By order, उप पंजीकार/Deputy Registrar.