IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR SMC BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 136/Asr/2018 Assessment Year 2005-06 Suresh Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer, L/H Late Sh. Sant Ram, Ward-1(2), Bathinda 6329, Mata Rani Wali Gali, Bathinda [PAN: AMGPK5985L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.) Respondent by Sh. Amar Pal Meena (D.R.) Date of Hearing 28.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 28.08.2019 ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran, Accountant Member assessee has filed this appeal challenging order dated 12-01-2018 passed by Ld CIT(A), Bathinda and it relates to assessment year 2005-06. assessee is aggrieved by decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming addition relating to bank deposits to extent of Rs.4,15,000/-. 2. This is second round of proceedings. original assessment was completed by AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Act on receipt of information that assessee had made cash deposits to tune of Rs.11.80 lakhs in bank account. AO assessed peak credit amount of Rs.9,65,000/-. Since assessee had expired, 2 ITA No. 136/Asr/2018 (AY 2005-06) Suresh Kumar v. ITO AO completed assessment in name of one of legal heirs named Shri Suresh Kumar. In first round, Ld CIT(A) sustained addition to extent of Rs.5,15,000/-. When matter reached ITAT, Tribunal restored matter back to file of AO on technical issue. AO again completed assessment by determining total income at Rs.9,65,000/-. In second round, Ld CIT(A) sustained addition to extent of Rs.4,15,000/-. Still aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal. 3. Ld A.R submitted that assessee was small time businessman engaged in purchase and sale of small bits of land. He did not maintain books of accounts. He has also sold his own lands in October, 2000, August 2003 and January 2005 for Rs.3.40 lakhs, Rs.1.00 lakh and Rs.2.50 lakhs respectively. Ld A.R submitted that savings with assessee as well as above said sale proceeds were used to make impugned bank deposits. He further submitted bank account stood in joint name of assessee and his son. Inviting my attention to paragraph 4 of assessment order, Ld A.R submitted that AO himself has observed that amount so deposited was belonged to either Shri Sant Ram or Shri Suresh Kumar . Having observed so, AO has, however, proceeded to assess entire deposits in hands of assessee. He submitted that son of assessee might have also deposited his own funds in impugned bank account. Since they do not maintain books of accounts, explanations could not be properly supported. Ld A.R submitted that considering above said submissions, status of assessees, human probabilities and surrounding circumstances, entire addition may be deleted. 3 ITA No. 136/Asr/2018 (AY 2005-06) Suresh Kumar v. ITO 4. Ld D.R, on contrary, submitted that assessee has not properly proved sources for making deposits and accordingly submitted that order passed by Ld CIT(A) does not call for any interference. 5. I heard parties and perused record. I notice that assessing officer has assessed entire amount of deposits in hands of assessee, even though he has observed that deposits belonged to either assessee or his son. Hence, there is possibility that part of deposits could have been made by son of assessee also. I also notice that Ld CIT(A) has not given any credit for past savings of assessee. Ld A.R submitted that assessee was small time trader in lands and was earning money. Further assessee has sold his own lands for aggregate amount of Rs.6.90 lakhs and Ld CIT(A) has given credit only to tune of Rs.5.50 lakhs out of above said amount of Rs.6.90 lakhs. Accordingly he has confirmed addition to tune of Rs.4,15,000/-. 6. In my view, further credit towards past savings of assessee, deposits by son of assessee should also be given considering human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. Accordingly I estimate past savings of assessee at Rs.1.25 lakhs and deposits belonging to son of assessee at Rs.1.50 lakhs. aggregate of both amounts is Rs.2.75 lakhs. Accordingly I modify order passed by Ld CIT(A) and allow credit of Rs.8.25 lakhs (5.50 + 2.75) against addition of Rs.9.65 lakhs made by AO. Accordingly, addition is sustained to extent of Rs.1.45 lakhs. I order accordingly. 4 ITA No. 136/Asr/2018 (AY 2005-06) Suresh Kumar v. ITO 7. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on August 28, 2019 Sd/- (B. R. Baskaran) Accountant Member Date: 28.08.2019 Sr. Ps. Copy of order forwarded to: (1) Appellant (2) Respondent: (3) CIT(Appeals) (4) CIT concerned (5) Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order Suresh Kumar L/H Sant Ram v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bathinda