2018 (7) TMI 284 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - joint-bank account - amount deposited in the bank account attributable / belongs to the assessee or family members - gift from the father - Held that - In the present case, no other credit, apart from ₹ 49 lac deposited cash on 22.10.2008, has been attributed to the assessee. Further, of the said ₹ 49 lacs, ₹ 41 lacs stands distributed/gifted by the assessee s father equally (almost) among his six daughters. Only a father would do so and, impliedly, qua his own property. The unmistakable inference that arises is that the said amount belonged to the assessee s father. Irrespective of whether the source thereof has been satisfactorily explained by the assessee or not, and which we categorically find as not, the same cannot be deemed as the assessee s income; the assessee having led sufficient evidence to show that the same did not belong to her, but, in all probability, to her father, with she being, in fact, one of the beneficiaries of the said sum, i.e., along with her other siblings. This, we may add, is also the sum and substance of the impugned order. The addition for ₹ 49 lacs, therefore, as in the case of the assessee s sister needs to be deleted. With the sum of ₹ 1 lac deposited cash in the assessee s HDFC Bank account, which does not appear to be a joint account. The source thereof is explained to be the income of the assessee s husband, Sh. Jagwinder Singh, stated to be an agriculturist. No evidence toward the same, however, has been brought on record by the assessee at any stage. We observe that though the assessee raised this issue as well before the CIT(A), he has not adjudicated thereon. The same, therefore, cannot form the subject matter of the Revenue s appeal before us. Not surprisingly, no arguments in its respect were urged before us

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Onus to prove the source of the amount credited in the bank account.
3. Reliance on the decision in the case of Intezar Ali.
4. Consideration of the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer (AO).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The case involves the assessee, a teacher by profession, who had cash deposits in her bank accounts amounting to ?49 lacs and ?1 lac. The Assessing Officer (AO) deemed these amounts as her income under Section 68 due to the absence of any explanation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] admitted additional evidence provided by the assessee and called for a remand report from the AO. The source of the ?49 lacs was explained as an advance received from an 'agreement to sell' (ATS) involving the assessee's father, Sadhu Singh. The CIT(A) concluded that the cash deposited belonged to Sadhu Singh and not the assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that sufficient evidence showed the money belonged to Sadhu Singh, and thus, the addition could not be deemed as the assessee's income.

2. Onus to Prove the Source of the Amount Credited in the Bank Account:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating that the onus to prove the source of the amount credited in the bank account was on the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had admitted evidence and called for a remand report, which the AO failed to adequately address. The Tribunal found that the assessee had led sufficient evidence to show that the ?49 lacs belonged to her father, thus rebutting the presumption under Sections 68/69A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the onus was effectively discharged by the assessee.

3. Reliance on the Decision in the Case of Intezar Ali:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erroneously relied on the decision in Intezar Ali without appreciating the factual differences. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had considered the common practice of under-reporting sale prices to reduce stamp duty and found no evidence to suggest that the sale deed reflected the actual sale consideration. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the overwhelming evidence indicated the cash deposit belonged to Sadhu Singh, and no case was made out against the assessee.

4. Consideration of the Remand Report Submitted by the AO:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report submitted by the AO, which questioned the authenticity of the ATS and the source of the cash deposit. The Tribunal noted discrepancies and anomalies in the documents provided by the assessee, including differences in sale amounts and buyers. However, the Tribunal concluded that the cash deposit of ?49 lacs could not be deemed as the assessee's income, as the evidence suggested it belonged to Sadhu Singh. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition for ?49 lacs.

Other Considerations:
The Tribunal also addressed the assessee's Cross Objection (CO), which was time-barred by 411 days and lacked sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee's counsel did not wish to press the CO, leading to its dismissal as not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's CO, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?49 lacs. The Tribunal found that the cash deposit belonged to the assessee's father, Sadhu Singh, and sufficient evidence was provided to rebut the presumption of income under Sections 68/69A. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of ?1 lac deposited in the HDFC Bank account was not adjudicated by the CIT(A) and thus did not form part of the Revenue's appeal.