Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. Jagtar Singh, Ropar vs Ito, Ropar on 1 June, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES(SMC), CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 46/Chd/2016
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Sh. Jagtar Singh Vs. The I TO
S/o Sh. Kishan Singh Ward-2(2), Ropar
R/o H.No. 17, S treet No. 9
Malhotra Colony, Ropar
PAN No. CKYPS3563E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Shri Navdeep Monga
Respondent By : Ms. Chanderkanta
Date of hearing : 30/05/2017
Date of Pronouncement : 01/06/2017
ORDER
This appeal by the assessee has been directed agaist the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh dt. 18/11/2015 for assessment year 2011-12.
2. I have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the findings of authorities below.
3. Brief facts of the case are that as per AIR information, it was found that the assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 52,91,000/- with Bank of India during the relevant assessment year on various dates from 12/05/2010 to 23/03/2011 as noted at page 2 of the assessment order. The assessee was directed to explain the source of cash deposits. It was held by the AO that out of the total cash deposits, the source of the amount to the tune of Rs. 29,12,240/- has not been satisfactorily explained and the same was added to the total income of the assessee.
4. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that he is agriculturist and earned his livelihood from his agricultural income. Assessee is not maintaining any record of his agricultural activity including J-forms of agriculture produce. Regarding the source of cash deposits of Rs. 21,54,000/-, it was submitted that 2 this cash deposits is out of receipt of advance of Rs. 22 Lakhs against the sale of land to Sh. Kulbir Singh S/o Sh. Hazara Singh. Reproduction of the part of the assessment order discussing the addition of Rs. 21,54,000/-, the assessee reiterated that the impugned addition is on account of non production of Sh. Kulbir Singh, the purchaser of the land who had gone abroad and settled overseas. The assessee submitted that the statement of Sh. Jasbir Singh power of attorney holder of Sh. Kulbir Singh was recorded therefore onus upon assessee stood discharged by producing the person holding power of attorney before the AO. Nothing was submitted as regard to other additions except reiterating the submission already made.
5. Ld. CIT(A) considering the explanation of the assessee confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, his findings in para 6.2 of the order is reproduced hereunder:
6.2 I have gone through the submission of the appellant and the discussion made in the assessment order in regard to the addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits. Sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant during the assessment and appellate proceedings to explain the source of cash deposits. Since all the cash deposits were said to be made out of sale of agriculture produce, the appellant was supposed to produce substantial evidences in this regard in form of relevant documents supporting the sale of such agriculture produce. In absence of such documents, the Assessing Officer required the appellant to appear before him. Instead of producing the appellant by taking the plea that he has settled overseas, the representative of the appellant produced another person claimed to have general power of attorney on behalf of the appellant. I am of the opinion that by mere producing another person with self serving general power of attorney, the appellant failed to discharge the onus to explain the cash deposits satisfactorily to the Assessing Officer. The most important factor here is the availability of evidence supporting the agriculture activity and the sale of agriculture produce in the market. Availability of true, material and relevant evidences might not have required the appellant or the person carrying general power of attorney on his behalf in personal capacity. Even if the appellant is settled overseas and somebody carrying authentic general power of attorney is available on his behalf, he has to produce the relevant evidences in support to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account. The appellant has not produced anything before the Assessing Officer or during the present proceedings and, therefore, failed to explain the source of cash. In view of the above discussion, the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits for Rs. 29,12,240/- is confirmed. Ground of appeal No. 2 is dismissed.
6. After considering the rival submission, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders of the authorities below in making and confirming the addition of Rs. 29,12,240/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee .
3
7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee mainly argued with regard to the deposit of Rs. 21,54,000/- in cash in bank account of assessee on 28/09/2010. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that advance of Rs. 22,00,000/- was received from Sh Kulbir Singh against sale of the land. He has submitted that the deal was not finalized therefore advance made was forfeited. He has submitted that forfeited amount is a capita receipt therefore no addition of this amount could be made. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Travancore Rubber And Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Trivandrum in Appeal (Civil) 385-386 of 1999 dt. 14/03/2000 in support of his contention.
8. On the other hand Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below and submitted that the issue before the authorities below was as regards unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposits in the bank account, therefore, no further interference is called for in the matter. The decision in the case of Travancore Rubber And Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) would not apply to the facts of the case.
9. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the findings of the authorities below, it is clear that the issue before the authorities below was regarding cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the financial year under consideration. There are various cash deposits on various dates totaling to twelve in numbers as noted at page 2 of the assessment order. The assessee allegedly explained each and every deposit by explaining that source of the cash deposits were from sale of Popular trees & vegetables, withdrawal from the bank and advance receipt against the sale of the property, sale of car etc. The AO however noted that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of any of the explanation. As regards the deposit of Rs. 21,54,000/- in cash in bank account of the assessee on 28/09/2010, AO noted that agreement to sale revealed that the sale deed of the land was to be made on or before 28/10/2011. The assessee was asked to 4 produce sale deed and confirmation of the purchaser and copy of his bank statement, however, no details were furnished before the AO. The assessee admitted that sale deed has not been made till date. The assessee also failed to produce the purchaser Sh. Kulbir Singh before the AO. However his GPA holder Shri Jasbir Singh was produced but he did not produce any documentary evidence in respect of purchase of land alongwith source of the payment alongwith mode of payment before the AO. The GPA holder shown his inability to produce any documentary evidence to explain source of the payment of Rs. 22,00,000/- as advance against sale of the property. Same is the position before the Ld. CIT(A) because no evidence was produced to explain the source of advance of Rs. 22,00,000/- or the genuineness of the agreement to sell itself. Thus assessee failed to produce any evidence if any genuine agreement to sell was executed for taking advance of Rs. 22,00,000/- and also failed to produce any source of the receipt of advance of Rs. 22,00,000/-. No confirmation from the purchaser was filed and the purchaser was not produce to verify receipt of advance of Rs. 22,00,000/-. The GPA holder has already shown his inability to produce nay documentary evidence of source and mode of payment of advance money. The assessee therefore miserably failed to explain the source of advance money receipt of Rs. 22,00,000/- from Shri Kulbir Singh. No documentary evidence is also filed before the Tribunal to substantiate the explanation filed before the authorities below.
10. The contention and case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee would not support the case of the assessee because the genuineness of the agreement to sell itself is in doubt and assessee also failed to explain the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 21,54,000/- in the bank account of the assessee. No interference is therefore called for in the matter. It may also be noted here that regarding rest of the amount deposited as cash in the bank account of the assessee, Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not argue the appeal and did not produce any evidence in this regard. In my view assessee has failed 5 to explain the source of cash deposits in his bank account to the extent of Rs. 29,12,240/-, therefore, the appeal of the assessee has no merit the same is accordingly dismissed.
11. In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/-
(BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 01/06/2017 AG Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR