Anil Dhariwal, Meerut vs Assessee

Shri Anil Dhariwal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village & Post Kanchanpur Ward -1(1), Ghopla, Meerut Meerut

(PAN ABVPD 7405 I)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. A. Misra, CIT. DR.

ORDER

PER SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JM:

1. This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the

CIT(A)'s order dated 25.03.2013. The relevant assessment year is 2003-

04.

2. The only effective ground raised read as follow:-

"1. The Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has not consider that the assessee has filed confirmation of sundry creditors of Rs.51,000/- and unsecured loan of Rs.1,56,000/- of all the creditors and loan creditors the assessee also furnished affidavit of the person who having credit balance with the assessee. Therefore, finding given by the CIT(A) is against the facts of the case."

ITA No.2446/Del /2013 2 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows.

The assessment pursuant to order u/s 263 was completed on

29.12.2008 making addition of Rs.51,000/- as unexplained receipts and a

sum of Rs.1,56,000/- on account of unexplained family loans. The CIT(A)

confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4. The assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us. The Ld.

counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the

Income Tax Authorities and also filed the paper book comprising of 64

pages enclosing the details of the persons from whom the assessee has

received money and confirmation from them. Ld. D.R. relied on the orders

of the Income Tax Authorities.

5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on

record. With reference to addition of Rs.51,000/-, it is a case of the

assessee that he had received advances from 11 persons for the

purchase of plots. The details of the persons from whom the amounts

were received are as follows:-

Anil Kumar Dhariwal List of Advance for Plots

Years 2002-03 Smt. Balwanti Devi Rs.18,000.00 Sh. Dharmveer Singh Rs.15,000.00 Sh. Ganesh Babu Rs.17,800.00 Sh. Jai Kumar Rs.16,000.00 Sh. Mehkar Singh Rs.17,000.00 Sh. Nawab Singh Rs.20,000.00 ITA No.2446/Del /2013 3

Smt. Shiksha Devi Rs.16,000.00 Sh. Sukhbeer Singh Rs.16,000.00 Sh. Rukam Singh Rs.18,000.00 Sh. Ram Dass Rs.18,100.00 Sh. Subodh Kumar Rs. 15,000.00 Rs.1,86,900.00

6. Out of the above persons from whom the assessee had received

money, the AO disbelieved the receipt of money from the following three

persons, namely:

(i) Smt. Balwanti Devi Rs.18,000/- (ii) Smt. Shiksha Devi Rs.16,000/- (iii) Sh. Mehkar Singh Rs.17,000/- Rs.51,000/-

7. All the three persons according to assessee have expired. However,

confirmations were obtained at the time of original assessment and same

were placed in the assessment records. Copies of the same were also

enclosed in the paper book furnished by the assessee. The Assessing

Officer had accepted the explanation of the assessee with regard to

receipt of money from eight other persons. The only reason for the

addition of Rs.51,000/- was that above person could not be produced

before the AO. It is a case of the assessee that these three persons have

expired. The CIT(A) had doubted the genuineness of the confirmation

letter's filed. However, confirmation of eight person amounting to

Rs.1,35,900/- was accepted as genuine (1,86,900-51,000) and therefore, ITA No.2446/Del /2013 4

we see no reason to disbelieve the version of assessee that these three

person have expired. As mentioned earlier, AO had added Rs.51,000/-

only for the reason that the three person did not appear before him. This

action of AO is not justified, especially, since the receipts of money from

other eight persons are accepted as genuine. Therefore, addition of

Rs.51,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is hereby

deleted.

8. As regards, addition of Rs.1,56,000/-, the CIT(A) upheld the addition

made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:-

(Para 3.2) "During the appeal proceedings, it was submitted that confirmations were filed during the assessment proceedings. Copies of such confirmations have also been filed in the appeal proceedings. It is noted that all the amounts received as loan from the 8 parties are Rs.19,500/- and has been received in cash. Obviously, this is only to circumvent the provisions of Section 269 SS of the IT Act. As in the case of advances for the plot of land, the confirmations are sketchy and only bear the signature of the party concerned. Therefore, the assessee has not discharged the burden of proof adequately with regard to the genuineness of these loans. Accordingly, the action of the AO is upheld."

9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on

record. The assessee was required by the AO to file the confirmation in

respect family loans amounting to Rs.3,67,000/-. Assessee did not furnish

the confirmation of the following persons:

S.No. Name Amount

1. Sh. Ram Kumar Rs.19,500/- 2. Sh. Laksmi Narayan Rs.19,500/- 3. Sh. Jai Krishan Rs.19,500/- ITA No.2446/Del /2013 5

4. Sh. Mahendra Rs.19,500/- 5. Sh. Pramod Rs.19,500/- 6. Sh. Shyam Singh Rs.19,500/- 7. Sh. Mulchand Rs.19,500/- 8. Sh. Krishan Sahai Rs.19,500/- Total Rs.1,56,000/-

10. The CIT(A) held that the confirmation filed before him, is

inconsistent and the receipt of amount was in cash below Rs.20,000/-,

only to circumvent the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. Even

before us, assessee has not produced any material/documents to deviate

from the stand taken by the Income Tax Authorities. Accordingly, we

confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this score.

11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 13th January, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. SAINI) (GEORGE GEORGE K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated: 13th January, 2015.

Aks/- Copy forwarded to 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi