Ajit Singh v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersITA No. 1202 (Del) of 2016 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1252 (Del-Trib) Ajit Singh v. ITO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Income from undisclosed sources--Addition under section 69ADeposit in bank account----Since assessee failed to prove source of cash deposited in his bank account, addition made on account of undisclosed income was justified.--Assessee was asked to produce source of cash deposited in his bank account. He stated that the amount was taken from his mother but could not produce any evidence in this regard. Hence, the same was treated as undisclosed income within the meaning of section 69A and accordingly, addition was made. *Held:* Whatever contention was raised by assessee was not proved through any evidence or material on record. No independent witness was produced to substantiate the fact that cash was actually given by assessee's mother. Hence, addition made on account of undisclosed income was justified. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 69A *REFERRED :* FAVOUR : Against the assessee A.Y. : 2011-12 IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Ajit Singh v. ITO ITA No. 1202/Del/2016 16 May, 2017 Assessee by: Sakshi Rani, CA Department by: Bedobani, Sr.DR ORDER *Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.* This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) (1) Gurgaon dated 3-1-2016 for assessment year 2011-12, challenging the addition of Rs. 22,16,500 on account of cash deposit in the bank account. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessing officer has noted in the assessment order that the assessee for year under consideration had cash deposits of Rs. 25,66,500 in his bank account maintained with Corporation Bank, Maneser. The assessee was asked to produce the source of this cash deposit along with the evidence to support his claim. The assessee stated that the amount was taken from his mother but could not produce any evidence in this regard and stated that same will be submitted shortly. Further the assessee filed a ikrarnama and certificate from village Sarpanch that his mother is legal heir of his maternal grandmother (mothers mother), however, the assessee could not furnish any evidence to prove the source of cash deposits. Hence the same was treated as undisclosed income by the assessing officer within the meaning of section 69A of the IT Act and made addition of Rs. 25,66,500 to the income of the assessee. The assessee at the appellant proceedings moved application for additional evidence in the form of above mentioned ikrarnama and a copy of the bank statement of his grandmother. The assessee requested for admission of the same as additional evidence. The assessing officer has filed his comments on the same which is reproduced on the impugned order in which the assessing officer reiterated the facts stated in the assessment order and also submitted that assessee replied that the cash was arranged from his mother through gift and her mother got this cash from her own mother. It was also stated that cash was withdrawn from the bank account of maternal grandmother of the assessee (late Smt. Saraswati Devi). The assessee furnished copy of ikrarnama only and not source of the cash deposit was furnished. The assessing officer objected to the admission of the additional evidence. The assessing officer also reproduced the bank account of late Smt. Saraswati Devi and stated that from her account there is a withdrawal of Rs. 25 lacs on 18-8-2009 and Rs. 42 lacs on 9-10-2009. It is stated that she has received compensation but no evidence has been furnished. Therefore receipt of compensation remained unverified. No gift deed if any is executed by Smt. Saraswati Devi maternal grandmother in favour of Smt. Vidya Devi mother of the assessee. Only copy of the ikrarnama is filed which also speaks compensation equivalent to one acre is to be given to Smt. Vidya Devi mother of the assessee. No other details have been mentioned. The assessee at the remand proceedings explained cash in hand of Rs. 30, 70,000 on 1-4-2010 and out of it cash has been deposited in his bank account after a gap ranging 3-10 months of withdrawal from the bank account of his grandmother Smt. Saraswati Devi. No explanation of when the amount was received and purpose of keeping cash have explained. The assessing officer therefore reported that creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction remained unapproved and requested the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal of assessee. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersITA No. 1202 (Del) of 2016
2017 TaxPub(DT) 1252 (Del-Trib)

Ajit Singh v. ITO

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Income from undisclosed sources--Addition under section 69ADeposit in bank account----Since assessee failed to prove source of cash deposited in his bank account, addition made on account of undisclosed income was justified.--Assessee was asked to produce source of cash deposited in his bank account. He stated that the amount was taken from his mother but could not produce any evidence in this regard. Hence, the same was treated as undisclosed income within the meaning of section 69A and accordingly, addition was made. Held: Whatever contention was raised by assessee was not proved through any evidence or material on record. No independent witness was produced to substantiate the fact that cash was actually given by assessee's mother. Hence, addition made on account of undisclosed income was justified.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 69A

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. : 2011-12

IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH

BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

Ajit Singh v. ITO

ITA No. 1202/Del/2016

16 May, 2017

Assessee by: Sakshi Rani, CA

Department by: Bedobani, Sr.DR

ORDER

Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.

This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) (1) Gurgaon dated 3-1-2016 for assessment year 2011-12, challenging the addition of Rs. 22,16,500 on account of cash deposit in the bank account.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessing officer has noted in the assessment order that the assessee for year under consideration had cash deposits of Rs. 25,66,500 in his bank account maintained with Corporation Bank, Maneser. The assessee was asked to produce the source of this cash deposit along with the evidence to support his claim. The assessee stated that the amount was taken from his mother but could not produce any evidence in this regard and stated that same will be submitted shortly. Further the assessee filed a ikrarnama and certificate from village Sarpanch that his mother is legal heir of his maternal grandmother (mothers mother), however, the assessee could not furnish any evidence to prove the source of cash deposits. Hence the same was treated as undisclosed income by the assessing officer within the meaning of section 69A of the IT Act and made addition of Rs. 25,66,500 to the income of the assessee. The assessee at the appellant proceedings moved application for additional evidence in the form of above mentioned ikrarnama and a copy of the bank statement of his grandmother. The assessee requested for admission of the same as additional evidence. The assessing officer has filed his comments on the same which is reproduced on the impugned order in which the assessing officer reiterated the facts stated in the assessment order and also submitted that assessee replied that the cash was arranged from his mother through gift and her mother got this cash from her own mother. It was also stated that cash was withdrawn from the bank account of maternal grandmother of the assessee (late Smt. Saraswati Devi). The assessee furnished copy of ikrarnama only and not source of the cash deposit was furnished. The assessing officer objected to the admission of the additional evidence. The assessing officer also reproduced the bank account of late Smt. Saraswati Devi and stated that from her account there is a withdrawal of Rs. 25 lacs on 18-8-2009 and Rs. 42 lacs on 9-10-2009. It is stated that she has received compensation but no evidence has been furnished. Therefore receipt of compensation remained unverified. No gift deed if any is executed by Smt. Saraswati Devi maternal grandmother in favour of Smt. Vidya Devi mother of the assessee. Only copy of the ikrarnama is filed which also speaks compensation equivalent to one acre is to be given to Smt. Vidya Devi mother of the assessee. No other details have been mentioned. The assessee at the remand proceedings explained cash in hand of Rs. 30, 70,000 on 1-4-2010 and out of it cash has been deposited in his bank account after a gap ranging 3-10 months of withdrawal from the bank account of his grandmother Smt. Saraswati Devi. No explanation of when the amount was received and purpose of keeping cash have explained. The assessing officer therefore reported that creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction remained unapproved and requested the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal of assessee.