IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 114 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.9.2019 Basant Kumar Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (Punjab) Respondent CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present: - Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM-5282-CII-2019 This is application for condonation of delay of 45 days in re-filing present appeal. For reasons stated in application, same is allowed. Delay of 45 days in re-filing appeal is condoned ITA-114-2019 (O&M) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) upholding action of authorities in invoking Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby adding amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- to income of assessee. 2. case of assessee was that his employee Chiman Lal had advanced sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- by way of cheque (which was duly returned with interest within same year). However, authorities below noticed that even as per his own case, Chiman Lal stated his monthly 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 16-09-2019 11:15:53 ::: ITA No. 114 of 2019 -2- income to be Rs. 14,000/- to 15,000/-. He opened account on 16.5.2013 with infusion of Rs. 3.00 lakhs in cash and same was immediately transmitted to appellant. Thereafter on 7.8.2013, sum of Rs. 40,000/- was again introduced in account and same was also immediately handed over to assessee. On 14.8.2013, there was another infusion of Rs. 2.00 lakhs by cash which was also handed over to assessee. It was stated that prior to this, Chiman Lal had no bank account and authorities below ultimately came to conclusion that his creditworthiness was not proved. 3. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that once Chiman Lal had appeared and given his own affidavit and money was paid to assessee-appellant by cheque by banking transaction and was returned through banking transaction, authorities below erred in deciding against appellant. He has, thus, emanated following question of law:- Whether in facts and circumstances of case, action for invoking deeming provision for making additions u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is it unreasonable action once identity, creditworthiness, genuineness, bonafide and capacity to pay stands proved and onus discharged, yet making addition hence suffers vice of non application of mind ? 4. In our opinion, appeal has to fail. Tribunal noticed that it was very strange that appellant would keep his entire savings in cash. We further find it strange that if on 16.5.2013, appellant decided to change his method of saving and put his money in bank, why he did not put entire savings in bank and why he retained sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- with him in cash. Chiman Lal is admittedly not income tax assessee, thereby strengthening view that not only he is not rich 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 16-09-2019 11:15:54 ::: ITA No. 114 of 2019 -3- man but he is barely able to make ends meet. 5. Learned counsel for appellant has relied upon Commissioner of Income Tax versus Deen Dayal Choudhary (2017) 148 DTR Judgments. In that case, three persons had given credit of Rs. 25.00 lakhs, 45 lakhs and 20 lakhs, respectively to that assessee. All these three persons were income tax assessees and were able to show infusion of funds in their banks to satisfaction of income tax authorities. In circumstances, facts of case are entirely distinguishable. appeal is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) September 11, 2019 JUDGE Gurpreet Whether speaking /reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No 3 of 3 Basant Kumar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhatinda