Case Law Details
Praveen Kumar Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Revenue submitted that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits. The only contention of the assessee before the authorities below was that the amount was received as a gift from his father. He submitted that the assessee has merely filed an affidavit. However, creditworthiness of the donor could not be proved by the assessee by furnishing the requisite evidences. Therefore, the authorities below were justified in confirming the addition.
Explanation of the assessee regarding cash deposited in his bank account was stated to be a gift received from his father. An affidavit by the father of the assessee was also filed. However, the assessee could not prove the creditworthiness of the donor by furnishing the supporting evidences regarding creditworthiness of the donor. The assessee was required to prove the creditworthiness of the donor. In view of the same addition for cash Gift Received from Father justified.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 31.03.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
(1) “That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made towards the cash deposit, since the assessee has duly explained the source of the same. The assessee’s father who gave the money, is an agriculturist and his creditworthiness has also been duly explained.
(2) That the order appealed against, is bad in law and violating the principles of natural justice, since the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made towards the cash deposit mere on his personal opinion without judiciously considering the explanation made.
(3) For these and other grounds, which may be urged at the time of the hearing, the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered.
2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings. It is seen from the records that there has not been any representation on behalf of the assessee since 25.01.2021 despite various opportunities have been given. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being disposed off on the basis of material available on record.
3. The only effective ground in this appeal is against the sustaining of addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee.
FACTS OF THE CASE
4. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Assessing Officer (“AO”) received AIR information regarding cash deposit aggregating to Rs.10,00,000/-in the Saving Bank Account of the assessee during the Financial Year 2009-10. The case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. Thereafter, a notice dated 29.03.2017 u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued after obtaining prior approval from CIT, Ghaziabad. In response thereto, the Ld.AR of the assessee attended the proceedings. During the course of proceedings, the assessee was called upon to explain the source of cash deposited of Rs.10,50,000/- in his Saving Bank Account bearing No.08652191000608 held with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Khurja, Bulandshahr. In response thereto, the assessee filed his explanation. However, the explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable to the AO. He therefore, made addition of Rs.10,00,000/- treating unexplained deposits in the saving bank account of the assessee and thus assessed the income at Rs.10,00,000/-.
5. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal.
6. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
7. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits. The only contention of the assessee before the authorities below was that the amount was received as a gift from his father. He submitted that the assessee has merely filed an affidavit. However, creditworthiness of the donor could not be proved by the assessee by furnishing the requisite evidences. Therefore, the authorities below were justified in confirming the addition.
8. I have heard contention of the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on fact by observing as under:-
5.1.3. “During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant furnished affidavit from Shri Ashok Chandra, appellant’s father, wherein it has been claimed that he gave appellant, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 28.08.2009 out of cash received out of income from agriculture and on sale of agricultural land.
5.1.4. Examination of facts reveals that appellant’s father claimed to have sold agricultural land on 17.03.2006 thus, the appellant’s claim of his father having agricultural income remained unsubstantiated and it is highly improbable that father would gift a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- after more than 2 years of sale of land. Thus, the contention of the appellant is an afterthought and it is also noted that no such detail has been furnished during assessment proceedings which were duly attended by the appellant. Thus, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.”
9. This finding of Ld.CIT(A) is not rebutted by the assessee by placing the requisite details and evidences. The explanation of the assessee regarding cash deposited in his bank account was stated to be a gift received from his father. An affidavit by the father of the assessee was also filed. However, the assessee could not prove the creditworthiness of the donor by furnishing the supporting evidences regarding creditworthiness of the donor. The assessee was required to prove the creditworthiness of the donor. Therefore, I don’t see any reason to interfere in the finding of the authorities below, the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th May, 2022.
