IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH: `SMC': NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA Nos.:- 2107, 2111 & 2112/Del/2018
(Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2012-13 & 2014-15)
Abdullah Siddique ITO
S/o Shri Abdul Allam, Mohalla-Sheikh Vs. Ward- 1
Zadgan, sahkari Krishi Yantra, Saharanpur
Sarahanpur,
Uttar Pradesh
PAN No: BGZPS9799C
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : None.
Revenue by : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 13.06.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2019
ORDER
PER DIVA SINGH:
These three appeals filed by the assessee assail the correctness of the
separate Orders dated 05.12.2017 of CIT(A)- Muzaffarnagar, pertaining to
2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Assessment Years on identical grounds.
Accordingly noting that the issues raised in the appeals rely upon similar set of
facts and circumstances a consolidated Order for the years under
consideration is being passed.
2. However it is worth mentioning that at the time of hearing, no one was
present on behalf of the assessee. The appeals were passed over. In the second
round also the assessee remained unrepresented. Considering the fact that on
the last date of hearing i.e. 06.03.2019 the appeals were adjourned on the
written request of the assessee in the background where on the earlier date
fixed for hearing i.e 10.09.2018, the appeal was adjourned on the written
request of the assessee and yet again on 11.12.2018, the assessee failed to
appear. In these circumstances since despite information the assessee has
ITA Nos.:- 2107, 2111, 2112/Del/2018
Abdullah Siddique.
failed to put in any appearance it was deemed appropriate to proceed with the
present appeal ex parte qua the assessee appellant on merits.
3. The Ld. Sr. DR Mr. Anuragi was heard who submitted that the facts,
circumstances and position of law in each of the appeals on identical grounds
remains the same. Accordingly, the facts, arguments and reasons considered
in ITA 2107/Del/2018 may be applicable to the remaining two appeals. On
considering the record, the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR were found correct on
merits.
4. Accordingly, for ready reference the grounds from ITA 2107/Del/2018
are being reproduced hereunder:
"1. The Ld CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the agriculture income of Rs.325000/-
only assumed by the Ld ITO despite submission of arguments and material of
higher agriculture income by the appellant and the Ld ITO having not brought
out any material whatsoever of his assumption of agriculture income.
2. The Ld. CIT (A) have grossly erred on facts and law in confirming an addition
of Rs 6,25,343/- to the income of the appellant as unexplained cash deposits in
the Bank Account under section 69 A of the Income Tax Act 1961.
3. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend, modify or withdraw any of the
grounds of appeal."
5. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee in response to notice
u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961, returned an income of Rs. 2,02000/-. The
AO in the course of the scrutiny proceedings required the assessee to explain
the deposits of Rs. 35,26,150/- in State Bank of India and Punjab National
Bank accountant nos. 10926030202 and 3726000102001305 respectively. The
assessee in response thereto submitted that his main source of income is from
agriculture. The deposits in the bank were stated to be from sale of crops and
poplar trees. It was claimed that he had also taken land on contract to grow
crops. The assessee was also found to have paid MBBS fees for his daughter
Miss Sabiya Abdullah amounting to approximately Rs. 7,00,000/- per annum.
Accordingly, considering the explanation and the evidences addition of Rs.
32,16,150/- was made by the A.O. in the following manner:
"As per the documents produced the assessee is having ; approximately 65
bighas of agricultural land and as per the prescribed rate an average of
Rs.4000/- to 5000/- agricultural income is earned from per bigha land, therefore,
a total of Rs.3,25,000/- is considered as agricultural income of the assessee per
annum. It is also worthwhile to mention here that in the return filed in response
Page 2 of 5
ITA Nos.:- 2107, 2111, 2112/Del/2018
Abdullah Siddique.
to notice u/s 148 of the assessee has not shown any income under the head
agricultural income, whereas he is stating that his total source of income is from
agriculture. Therefore, even if the contention of the assessed is accepted that he
is enjoying agriculture income, the same is taken of Rs.3,25,000/- and after
deducting Rs.3,25,000/- from total deposited the balance amount of Rs.3201150/-
remains unexplained case deposits as the onus lies on the assessed to prove the
capacity and genuineness of the transaction. Reliance is placed on Manoj
Aggarwal VS DCIT (ITAT, SB Del) 113 ITD 377 and VIT VS K. Chinnathamban
(S.C.) 292 ITR 682."
6. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A) who
considering the facts, submissions and the evidences granted part relief
holding as under:
"7. The facts of the case, submission of the appellant and remand report of the
AO have been gone through. In this case the appellant has filed return of income
of 09-05-2016 by declaring income of Rs.2,02,00,0/- u/s 44AD of the Act. There
were cash deposits of Rs.35,26,150/- in savings bank account maintained by the
appellant with State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank. It was explained
that the cash deposits in the bank account reflect agricultural receipts from sale
of crops, Poplar trees. The AO has estimated the agricultural income from the
appellant from 65 bighas of land at Rs.325.000/- and has made the addition of
balance amount of Rs.32,01,150/- as unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A of the
Act. The AR during the appellate proceedings has stated that the appellant has
earned income from business and agricultural activities and further stated that
the appellant has shown business receipts of Rs. 25,20,000/- from sale of seeds,
manures, seedlings etc on which profit of Rs.2,02,000/- has been shown u/s 44AD
of the Act. The AR argued that there are frequent cash withdrawals from these
bank accounts which are the source of subsequent deposits. The AR argued that
the AO has not given any benefit out of such cash withdrawals. The detailed
submission of the AR has been reproduced as above.
From the facts of the case and material on record it is noted that there
are frequent cash deposits/cash withdrawals in both the bank accounts of the
appellant. The appellant has shown business turnover of Rs.25,20,000/- in the
return of income on which income of Rs.2,02,000/- has been shown u/s 44AD of
the Act. The AO has not disputed these facts. From these facts it can be logically
inferred that amount of Rs.35.26,150/- deposited in the bank accounts of the
appellant was on account of business receipts of the appellant. There are
frequent cash deposits and withdrawals in the bank accounts of the appellant. In
these circumstances peak credit theory should have been applied by the AO to
compute the income out of transactions recorded in the bank statements. On this
basis after reducing opening balance in the bank accounts, the peak credit for
both the bank account works out to Rs.9,50,343/-. The AO has himself estimated
the agricultural income of the appellant at Rs.325000/-. After giving credit of
agricultural income of Rs.3,25,000/- and business income of Rs.2,02,000/-, there
remains unexplained credit of Rs.4,23,343/-. Under the facts it is therefore held
that the AO was justified to make addition to the extent of Rs.4,23,343/- which is
upheld. The balance addition is hereby deleted. Grounds of appeal Nos.2 to 8 are
hereby partly allowed."
7. Aggrieved by this the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.
Page 3 of 5
ITA Nos.:- 2107, 2111, 2112/Del/2018
Abdullah Siddique.
8. The Ld. Sr. DR relying upon the impugned order submitted that already
more than adequate relief has been granted to the assessee and nothing is
placed on record to justify any further relief. It was submitted that even if the
issue had to be decided on the basis of the estimates, even then the general
arguments that the cash withdrawals constituted the source of the deposits
without any evidence cannot out rightly be accepted. Nothing has been placed
before the ITAT to assail the said finding or grant any further relief.
9. I have heard the submissions and perused the material available on
record, I find that the Ld. CIT(A) in the order passed has been more than fair.
There is no argument, evidence or fact on record justifying any further relief.
Accordingly the grounds raised for want of any justification for modifying the
order passed are rejected. The finding under challenge is upheld. Said Order
was pronounced on the open Court at the time of hearing itself.
10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
11. A perusal of facts in ITA No. 2111/Del/2018 show that in the facts of the
present case also the assessee had returned an income of Rs. 1,27,300/-
pursuant to notice u/s 148 of IT Act. The deposits of Rs. 35,73,000/- in the
same saving bank accounts maintained with State Bank of India and Punjab
National Bank were required to be explained.
12. Similarly, in ITA No. 2112/Del/2018 it is seen that pursuant to notice
u/s 148 of IT Act the assessee returned an income of Rs. 2,32,210/-. Similarly,
in the very same two bank accounts the deposits amounting to Rs. 33,82,691/-
were required to be explained. In the year under consideration also the
assessee was found to have paid MBBS fees for his daughter Miss Sabiya
Abdullah amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- per annum.
13. Considering similar evidences and reasons additions made by the AO in
the respective years have been a subject matter of part relief by the CIT(A). The
CIT(A) it is seen relying upon the very same reasoning and facts granted part
relief considering the peak credit for both the accounts in the respective years
and relying upon the estimate of the AO of the agricultural income.
Accordingly, for similar reasons as set out in ITA No. 2107/Del/2018 for want
Page 4 of 5
ITA Nos.:- 2107, 2111, 2112/Del/2018
Abdullah Siddique.
of any argument, fact or evidence justifying any further relief the assessee's
appeals are dismissed. Said Order was pronounced in the open Court at the
time of hearing itself.
14. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Sd/-
(DIVA SINGH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 25.06.2019
Bidhan/AG(Chd)/Poonam(CHD)
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT NEW DELHI
Date of dictation 13.06.19
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member 14.06.19
17.06.19
20.06.19
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member
Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS
Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member
for pronouncement
Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/PS
Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT
Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk
Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk
The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for
signature on the order
Date of dispatch of the Order
Page 5 of 5
|
