Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora v. JCIT-25(2), Mumbai
[Citation -2016-LL-0926-50]

Citation 2016-LL-0926-50
Appellant Name Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora
Respondent Name JCIT-25(2), Mumbai
Court ITAT-Mumbai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 26/09/2016
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags application for adjournment • agricultural income • unexplained income
Bot Summary: We find from the record that a letter dated 15.09.2014 has been addressed to Ld. CIT(A) wherein it has been explained that the assessee Shri Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora was the joint account holder with his son Shri Narendra Singh Deora in which the alleged deposits were found by the AO. The other two persons, whose share of income from agricultural land was 3 ITA Nos.7093 7094/M/2014 Shri Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora deposited in the said account, one is the wife of the assessee namely Sayar Kunvar and the other is Bhuvnesh Deora who is the daughter in law of the assessee. Further, we find that the assessee had also furnished copies of affidavits wherein the wife of the assessee Sayarkunwar Deora and daughter in law of the assessee Bhuvnesh Deora have confirmed in their respective affidavits that they jointly owned land with their family members and during the year they had received their share of agricultural income which was deposited in the joint bank account of the assessee with his son Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora. So far as the penalty on account of loan from his son Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora is concerned, we find that from the record that the said account in question was jointly held by the assessee along with Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora. Under these circumstances, the amount in question cannot be said to be received by the assessee as loan rather the amount in question was deposited by Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora in the joint account and it cannot, in any manner, be termed as a loan to the assessee as Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora himself was also the holder of the account along with the assessee. Though in the assessment proceedings, the AO made the addition as the assessee had failed to furnish the proper evidences about carrying of cultivation activity the fact remains on the file that the assessee owns agricultural land. Merely because, the additions have been made into the income of the assessee, because of lack of evidence regarding the claim put-forth by the assessee, but that itself is not sufficient for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The additions in this case have been made not because that the AO has disproved the case of the assessee but because of the lack of evidence on the part of the assessee to prove his claim.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7093/M/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.7094/M/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh JCIT-25(2), Deora, c-11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, 101, Samarpan Building, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Rokadia Lane, Bandra (E), Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai 400 092 PAN: AACPD3337R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri B.S. Bist, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2016 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: above captioned two appeals preferred by assessee against separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] of even date 20.07.2012 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. application for adjournment has been made on behalf of assessee. However, considering that short and small issues are involved in these appeals, we proceed to dispose of these appeals after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative. First we take up assessee s appeal bearing ITA No.7093/M/2014. 2 ITA Nos.7093 & 7094/M/2014 Shri Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora ITA No.7093/M/2014 3. assessee, in this appeal, has agitated confirmation of penalty under section 271D read with section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as AO) noted that assessee had deposited Rs.17 lakh in his bank account during financial year 2008-09. Out of this amount assessee had received loan amount of Rs.8 lakh which was deposited in bank account in cash. said loan was received in following manner: i) Rs.2,50,000/- from Bhuvnesh Deora ii) Rs.2,50,000/- from Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora iii) Rs.3,00,000/- from Sayarkunwar Deora 4. On being asked to explain, assessee submitted that he had not received any loan from these persons and that he was head of family and looking after sale of agricultural produce. amount in question had been deposited in account of assessee out of agricultural income from land of family. assessee also furnished relevant documents pertaining to agricultural land/agricultural income. AO, however, held that assessee has not been able to produce evidence of agricultural activity. He, therefore, added said amount as unexplained income. He also levied penalty under section 271D against assessee for receiving cash loans from above said persons. 5. Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed impugned penalty. Being aggrieved by above order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come in appeal before us. 6. We find from record that letter dated 15.09.2014 has been addressed to Ld. CIT(A) wherein it has been explained that assessee Shri Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora was joint account holder with his son Shri Narendra Singh Deora in which alleged deposits were found by AO. other two persons, whose share of income from agricultural land was 3 ITA Nos.7093 & 7094/M/2014 Shri Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora deposited in said account, one is wife of assessee namely Sayar Kunvar and other is Bhuvnesh Deora who is daughter in law of assessee. assessee has explained that amount was out of proceeds of agricultural income which was deposited pertaining to share of family members which was deposited in bank account held by him jointly with his son. Further, we find that assessee had also furnished copies of affidavits wherein wife of assessee Sayarkunwar Deora and daughter in law of assessee Bhuvnesh Deora have confirmed in their respective affidavits that they jointly owned land with their family members and during year they had received their share of agricultural income which was deposited in joint bank account of assessee with his son Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora. It is pertinent to mention here that assessee is husband of Sayarkunwar Deora and Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora is husband of Bhuvnesh Deora. Under circumstances, it cannot be said that assessee had received any loan from his family members. nature of deposits has been duly explained. other family members of assessee have never admitted that they had given any loan to assessee rather plea is that amount has been deposited in joint saving bank account of family. 7. So far as penalty on account of loan from his son Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora is concerned, we find that from record that said account in question was jointly held by assessee along with Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora. Under these circumstances, amount in question cannot be said to be received by assessee as loan rather amount in question was deposited by Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora in joint account and it cannot, in any manner, be termed as loan to assessee as Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora himself was also holder of account along with assessee. It has been pleaded that other two ladies have also deposited said amount in family account who happened to be wives of assessee and his son 4 ITA Nos.7093 & 7094/M/2014 Shri Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora (Joint account holders). Under these circumstances, it cannot be said to be case of giving loan by said persons to assessee. In our view, lower authorities were not justified in levying impugned penalty under section 271D upon assessee. same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. ITA No.7094/M/2014 8. Now coming to assessee s appeal bearing ITA No.7094/M/2014. assessee, in this case, has agitated levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act of Rs.46,510/-. As observed above, AO found certain amount deposited in bank account of assessee. Out of said amount, assessee claimed that Rs.2,50,000/- was his own agricultural income and remaining amount of Rs.8 lakhs was income of family members which was deposited in said bank account. assessee produced relevant documents of ownership of land, however, submitted that he had given said land on contract and he himself did not carry out agricultural operations. It was explained that assessee was having total land of 4.32 hectors which produced 130 quintals of food grains out of which his share was 97 quintals and that balance had been distributed to cultivators. He also submitted name and addresses of cultivators. AO, however, held that since assessee had failed to furnish evidence of carrying out of agricultural operations and respective bills and vouchers for purchasing seeds and fertilizers, power consumption etc., he therefore treated said deposit of Rs.2.50 lakh as unexplained income of assessee. He levied impugned penalty on account of said addition made into income of assessee. 9. Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed penalty. 10. We have heard Ld. D.R. and have also gone through records. From record, it is undisputed that assessee is having agricultural land of 4.32 hectors. additions have been made in this case on account of failture of assessee to furnish evidences regarding carrying out agricultural 5 ITA Nos.7093 & 7094/M/2014 Shri Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora operations. Whereas plea of assessee had been that land was given on contract for cultivation and proceeds of his share out of agricultural income was deposited in his bank account. Though in assessment proceedings, AO made addition as assessee had failed to furnish proper evidences about carrying of cultivation activity, however, fact remains on file that assessee owns agricultural land. AO has not rebutted claim of assessee by showing any evidence that no agricultural activity was carried out on said land. plea of assessee that land was given on contract to other person has not been rebutted but additions have been made due to some lack of evidence regarding carrying out of operations. Undisputedly, assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct proceedings. Merely because, additions have been made into income of assessee, because of lack of evidence regarding claim put-forth by assessee, but that itself is not sufficient for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act. additions in this case have been made not because that AO has disproved case of assessee but because of lack of evidence on part of assessee to prove his claim. facts and circumstances of case do not suggest that claim of assessee has been proved to be wrong or false. factum of ownership of agricultural land of assessee has not been denied. Under these circumstances, we do not find it fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act. In our view, it has not been proved on file that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or had concealed his income. 11. In view of above, penalty levied/confirmed by lower authorities is hereby ordered to be deleted. 6 ITA Nos.7093 & 7094/M/2014 Shri Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora 12. In result, both appeals of assessee are hereby allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 26.09.2016. Sd/- Sd/- (Ashwani Taneja) (Sanjay Garg) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 2609.2016. Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: Appellant Respondent CIT, Concerned, Mumbai CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// [ By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora v. JCIT-25(2), Mumbai
Report Error