IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
`F' : NEW DELHI
DELHI BENCH `F
BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND
VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI ABY T. VARKEY,
No.2032/Del/2013
ITA No.
2009-10
Assessment Year : 2009-
Shri Ritesh Jindal, Vs. Income Tax Officer,
C/o Shri S.K. Bansal, Ward-
Ward-1,
Kochar Market,
CA, 101, Kochar Narnaul.
First Floor, Jhajjar Road,
Rohtak,
Haryana.
PAN : AIMPJ2083L.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri S.K. Bansal, CA.
Respondent by : Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr.DR.
ORDER
PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of
learned CIT(A), Rohtak dated 1st February, 2013 for the AY 2009-10.
2. Ground Nos.1 & 2 of the assessee's appeal read as under:-
"1. That the ld.A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts
in applying provisions of section 69/69A of Income Tax
Act. The ld.CIT(A) also has erred in law as well as on
facts in not deciding the issue on application of
provisions of section 69/69A.
2. That the ld.A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts
in making addition of Rs.2593400 on account of alleged
unexplained cash deposit in bank. The ld.CIT(A) has
further erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing
Ground No.1 against addition of Rs.2593400 on account
2 ITA-2032/Del/2013
of alleged unexplained cash deposits in Savings Bank
account No.61032028094 with SBBJ without considering
the books of accounts and the relevant documents."
3. At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned
counsel that the Assessing Officer made the addition of `25,93,400/- on
account of unexplained deposit with State Bank of Bikaner. He stated
that the assessee was carrying on the business of consignment agent
as per which, the assessee was receiving the goods i.e. cloth and after
the sale, the amount was deposited in the bank and cheque was
issued. Therefore, the addition, if any, can be made only for the profit
from such consignment business. He further submitted that in fact
there was no net profit from such business because assessee was
getting commission of around 2% and total turnover was around `25
lakhs. That the expenditure for carrying on of such business was more
than `50,000/- and therefore, there was no net profit from such
business. Accordingly, no income from the consignment business was
shown in the books of account. He, therefore, submitted that the
addition of `25,93,400/- should be deleted. He alternatively submitted
that the total peak credit in the assessee's bank account was
`2,73,772/-. The Assessing Officer made the addition for total amount
deposited with the bank in the whole year. That there was frequent
deposit and withdrawal of the amount and therefore, the addition
under Section 69/69A made by the Assessing Officer can be only in
respect of peak credit in the assessee's bank account and cannot be
for the total transaction between the assessee and the bank during the
whole year.
4. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of
authorities below. He stated that as per the information received by
the Revenue, it was gathered that the assessee has an account with
State Bank of Bikaner which is not disclosed for the purpose of income
3 ITA-2032/Del/2013
tax. That the assessee has not disclosed any business of cloth on
consignment basis. That when the assessee was asked to explain the
bank account, he made out a story of cloth business on consignment
basis. He, therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer rightly
rejected the assessee's story of consignment business. He further
submitted that the total deposit in the bank is unexplained and
therefore, the addition for the entire deposit was rightly made by the
Assessing Officer. The same should be sustained.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides
and perused relevant material placed before us. So far as the
assessee's claim of consignment business is concerned, we find that in
the return of income, the assessee has not disclosed any profit or loss
from the consignment business. Any assessee who is actually carrying
on a business and is filing the return of income will disclose the result
of such business, whether there is profit or loss, in the return of
income. The assessee claimed carrying on of such business only after
he was asked to explain the credits in his bank account with State
Bank of Bikaner. No documentary evidence in support of the
consignment business is produced. In view of the above, we agree
with the finding of the lower authorities that the claim of business of
cloth on consignment basis is unproved. However, we find force in the
alternative contention of the learned counsel that when there is a
running bank account and there is frequent withdrawal and deposit of
the money than the total of the deposit in the bank account cannot be
added as undisclosed income but it is only the peak credit in the bank
account which can be added as unexplained investment. Copy of the
bank account is placed at page 13 & 14 of the assessee's paper book.
We find that the highest credit is on 30th July, 2008 which was
`2,73,772/-. No satisfactory explanation for the source of such
investment is given. We, therefore, sustain the addition of `2,73,772/-
4 ITA-2032/Del/2013
as against the addition of `25,93,400/- made by the Assessing Officer
for unexplained deposit in the bank account.
6. Ground Nos.3, 4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal read as under:-
"3. That the ld.A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts
in making addition of Rs.45998 on account of alleged
difference in account of M/s Aryabandhu. The ld.CIT(A)
has also erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing
the said ground No.2.
4. That the ld.A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts
in making addition of Rs.71011 on account of alleged
low household withdrawals. The ld.CIT(A) has also
erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the said
ground No.3.
5. That the ld.A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts
in disallowing carriage expenses amounting to Rs.4127.
The ld.CIT(A) has also erred in law as well as on facts in
dismissing the said ground No.4."
7. At the time of hearing before us, no argument was advanced in
support of any of the above grounds. Accordingly, ground Nos.3 to 5 of
the assessee's appeal are treated as not pressed and rejected as such.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Decision pronounced in the open Court on 12th December, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
VARKEY)
(ABY T. VARKEY) AGRAWAL)
(G.D. AGRAWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Dated : 12.12.2014
VK.
5 ITA-2032/Del/2013
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant : Shri Ritesh Jindal,
C/o Shri S.K. Bansal, CA, 101, Kochar Market,
First Floor, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak, Haryana.
2. Respondent : Income Tax Officer,
Ward-
Ward-1, Narnaul.
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT
Assistant Registrar
|
