Iapl/12/2020 Of Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Agra

Court No. - 7 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 12 of 2020Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Gupta son of Late Naresh KumarGupta, Resident of 1281 Shri Krishna Bajaj, Station Road,Mainpuri Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Agra Counsel for Appellant :- Anwar HussainCounsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1.In this appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961, the appellant has raised three substantial questions of lawin respect of the judgment and order of the learned Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra, dated 8[th] July, 2019. Thesubstantial questions of law, as formulated by the appellant,read as follows :- “(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was legally justified in sustaining the addition ofRs. 14,31,582/- and Rs. 43,804/-U/s 68 of the Income TaxAct? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in disbelieving the affidavit filed by the father of the assessee who had testified the availability of money as a result of agriculture produce sold and past savings duly deposited in bank account. (iii)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals)?” 2.We notice from the papers before us that the learnedTribunal has proceeded to decide the appeal of the appellant,namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, upholding the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), being the first appellateauthority who confirmed the assessment order dated 18[th]February, 2014, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (4),Mainpuri. are not substantial questions of law but are essentially factual innature. The reasons for this conclusion will appear hereunder. 4.Whether the addition of Rs. 14,31,582/- can be sustainedor not is a factual issue that was specifically gone into by theAssessing Officer in the assessment order dated 18[th] February,2014, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow :- “....Thus it is clear that in the relevant assessment year theassessee has deposited cash. If in the years prior to assessmentyear under consideration the assessee has deposited the amountas it has been deposited in the relevant assessment year,agriculture income could have been accepted. Therefore theamount which has been deposited in joint account held with hisfather is the money of assessee himself from undisclosed amount.Since in financial year 2009-10 Rs. 290000/- was deposited andassessee's father has agriculture land, the sum of Rs. 200000/-can be treated to have been invested in margin money out ofagriculture income of father. Thus it is clear that the assesseecould explain source of availability of Rs. 909096/- out ofinvestment made at Rs. 2340678/- and the balance amount ofRs. 1431582/- has not been explained. Therefore amount of Rs.1431582/- is added to the income of the assessee as undisclosedincome.” 5.The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals), in respect of the assessment orderdated 18[th] February, 2014, and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer dated 18[th]February, 2014, with the following reasons :- “5-3 fu.kZ; 'ks;j ekftZu euh es fuosf'kr #0 23]04]678@& ds laca/k es vihykFkhZus crk;k gS fd mlus viuh jksdM ls #0 7]09]096@& rFkk 'ks"k viusfirk }kjk d`f"k mit dh fcdzh ls izkIr /ku ls fuosf'kr fd;k gSA vk;djvf/kdkjh us #0 7]09]096@& ds jksdM ds fuos'k dks lgh ekuk] fdarqvihykFkhZ ds firk }kjk fuosf'kr jkf'k esa ls dsoy #0 2]00]000@& ds nkosdks Lohdkj fd;kA vihykFkhZ us crk;k gS fd og vkSj mlds firk la;qDr#Ik ls jgrs gS vkSj muds ikl 50 ch?kk tehu gSA mUgksusa 2-5 o"kZ dhQly dks ekpZ ls vDVwcj 10 rd csp fn;k FkkA muds firk }kjk fuosf'krjkf'k dk fooj.k fuEuor gSA mijksDr ds laca/k esa d`f"k mRiknd e.Mh lfefr] eSuiqjh ls izkIr jlhnsa izLrqr “5-3 fu.kZ; 'ks;j ekftZu euh es fuosf'kr #0 23]04]678@& ds laca/k es vihykFkhZus crk;k gS fd mlus viuh jksdM ls #0 7]09]096@& rFkk 'ks"k viusfirk }kjk d`f"k mit dh fcdzh ls izkIr /ku ls fuosf'kr fd;k gSA vk;djvf/kdkjh us #0 7]09]096@& ds jksdM ds fuos'k dks lgh ekuk] fdarqvihykFkhZ ds firk }kjk fuosf'kr jkf'k esa ls dsoy #0 2]00]000@& ds nkosdks Lohdkj fd;kA vihykFkhZ us crk;k gS fd og vkSj mlds firk la;qDr#Ik ls jgrs gS vkSj muds ikl 50 ch?kk tehu gSA mUgksusa 2-5 o"kZ dhQly dks ekpZ ls vDVwcj 10 rd csp fn;k FkkA muds firk }kjk fuosf'krjkf'k dk fooj.k fuEuor gSA mijksDr ds laca/k esa d`f"k mRiknd e.Mh lfefr] eSuiqjh ls izkIr jlhnsa izLrqr dh xbZ] ftlesa fnukad 02-07-2010 dks 330 fDoaVy xsgwa dh fcdzh ls #0 3]37]838@& vkSj fnukad 04-10-2010 dks 850-15 fDoaVy /kku dh fcdzh ls #05]37]180@& dh izkfIr fn[kkbZ xbZ gSA fu/kkZj.k dh izfdz;k ds nkSjku fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh us vihykFkhZ ls d`f"k mit dh fcdzh dk lk{; izLrqr djus dk dgk Fkk] fdarq rc Hkh vihykFkhZ us dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;kA fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh usik;k fd vihykFkhZ us foRrh; o"kZ 2009&10 esa vius cSad [kkrs esa #02]90]000@& tek fd;k gS vkSj foRrh; o"kZ 2011&12 esa dqN Hkh tek ughfd;k gSA blds foijhr foRrh; o"kZ 2010&11 esa #0 15]02]220@& dh cMhjkf'k tek gqbZ gSA fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh dk dguk gS fd ;fn laxr o"kZ ds iwoZ o"kZ o vkxs ds o"kZ esa Hkh laxr o"kZ dh rjg tek jgrk rks bls d`f"k vk; ekuk tk ldrk FkkA fdarq izLrqr lk{;ksa ls ,slk yxrk gS fd laxr o"kZ esa tek dh xbZ jkf'k dks d`f"k vk; ds vk/kkj ij ifjHkkf"kr ugh fd;k tk ldk gSA o"kZ 2009& 10 es tek dh xbZ #0 2]90]000@& dh jkf'k dks ns[krs gq, vkSj ;g ns[krs gq,fd vihykFkhZ ds firk ds ikl d`f"k Hkwfe gS] fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh us #0 2]00]000@& dh d`f"k vk; firk ds gkFk esa mfpr ik;hA eSus fu/kkZj.k vkns'k es of.kZr rF;ksa vkSj vihykFkhZ }kjk fyf[kr fuosnu esa fn;s x;s rdksZ ij fopkj dj fy;k gSA esjs fopkj esa vihykFkhZ ds firk }kjk fd;s x;s fuos'k ds nkos ds laca/k es mfpr lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;s x;sA tks Hkh lk{; miyC/k djk;s x;s gSa mlls vihykFkhZ ds firk dh #0 16]31]582@& ds fuos'k dh l{kerk fl) ugh gksrhA xsgwa dh fcdzh vkSj /kku dh fcdzh ds laca/k esatks lk{; esjs lEeq[k izLrqr fd;s x;s gaS] mudks fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh ds lEeq[k D;ksa ugh izLrqr fd;k x;kA bl laca/k esa dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugh fn;k x;k gSA lkFk gh lkFk ;g ekuuk Hkh dfBu gS fd ek= 50 ch?kk d`f"k Hkwfe ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ O;fDr 330 fDoaVy xsgwa vkSj 850 fDoaVy /kku dh mit dj ldrk gSAvxj ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk;s fd ;g mit yxHkx <kbZ lky ds nkSjku gqbZ gS] rks bl laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gS ftlls fl) gks lds fd bruh d`f"k mit brus le; rd HkaMkj.k djds j[kh gqbZ FkhA ekpZ 2010 esa vkyw dh fcdzh ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugh djk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj vihykFkhZ vius firk dh fuos'k dh l{kerk dks fl) djus esa vlQy jgkA ek='kiFk & i= nkf[ky djus ls vihykFkhZ vius mRrjnkf;Ro ls eqDr ugh gks ldrkA /kkjk 68 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjrh dk nkf;Ro gksrk gS fd og Ik;kZIr lk{; izLrqr dj fuosf'kr jkf'k ds laca/k esa leqfpr Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr djsaA esjk ekuuk gS fd vihykFkhZ vius nkf;Ro dks iwjk djus esa vlQy jgk gSA vihykFkhZ ds firk ds cSad [kkrs es ,d lky igys tek fd;s x;s /ku vkSj d`f"k Hkwfe ds LokfeRo dks ns[krs gq, fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh }kjk mudh d`f"k vk; ls gq;s fuos'k dks #0 2]00]000@& rd eku ysuk U;k;ksfpr gh izrhr gksrk gSA esjs fopkj esa fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh }kjk ekftZu euh esa fuosf'kr #0 23]40]678@& ds laca/k es fn;s x;s Li"Vhdj.k ij tks fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS og foosdiw.kZ gSA fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh dk ;g ekuuk fd #0 14]31]582@& ds laca/k esa vihykFkhZ us lE;d Li"Vhdj.k ugh fn;k gS] lgh gh gSA vRk% #0 14]31]582@& dh v?kksf"kr vk; ekuuk loZFkk mfpr gS vkSj eS vihy ds bl vk/kkj dks vLohdkj djrk g¡wA 5-4 vihy dk f}rh; vk/kkj ¼2½ ;g gS fd vihydrkZ dh vkj0 Mh0 6 o"kZ dh gS tks fd laxr o"kZ eas C;kt ds 43804 #0 izkIr gq;s gS ftlesa ls dsoy 1 o"kZ dk C;kt 1212 #0 tksMuk pkfg;sA 5-5 vihykFkhZ dk fyf[kr fuosnu ¼2½ ;g gS fd vihydrkZ dh vkj0 Mh0 6 o"kZ dh gS tks fd laxr o"kZ esa C;kt ds 43]804 izkIr gq;s gS ftlesa ls C;kt ,d o"kZ dk 7300 #0 gh tqMuk pkfg;sA Z5-6 fu.k; 5-4 vihy dk f}rh; vk/kkj ¼2½ ;g gS fd vihydrkZ dh vkj0 Mh0 6 o"kZ dh gS tks fd laxr o"kZ eas C;kt ds 43804 #0 izkIr gq;s gS ftlesa ls dsoy 1 o"kZ dk C;kt 1212 #0 tksMuk pkfg;sA 5-5 vihykFkhZ dk fyf[kr fuosnu ¼2½ ;g gS fd vihydrkZ dh vkj0 Mh0 6 o"kZ dh gS tks fd laxr o"kZ esa C;kt ds 43]804 izkIr gq;s gS ftlesa ls C;kt ,d o"kZ dk 7300 #0 gh tqMuk pkfg;sA Z5-6 fu.k; vihykFkhZ dk dguk gS fd vkj0 Mh0 [kkrs esa tks C;kt izkIr gqvk gS og 6 o"kZ dk gS vkSj bl o"kZ esa dqy #0 7300@& dk tksM gksuk pkfg;s Fkk] tks fd ,d o"kZ dk C;kt curk gSA bl laca/k esa vihykFkhZ us dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;k gS ftlls ;g Kkr gks fd vkj0 Mh0 [kkrs esa izkIr C;kt dks iwoZ ds Ok"kkZsa eas Hkh fn[kk;k x;k FkkA vxj iwoZ ds o"kkZsa esa ;g C;kt vihykFkhZ us viuh vk; esa ugh fn[kk;k gS rks bl C;kt ij izkfIr ds vk/kkj ij blh o"kZ esa djk/kku djuk loZFkk mfpr gSA blfy, eS vihy ds bl vk/kkj dks vLohdkj djrk g¡wA 6- ifj.kkeLo#i] vihy dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA” 6.The learned Tribunal in the judgment and order dated 8[th]July, 2019, has specifically considered the issue in paragraphs7.2, 8, 9 and 10 of its order, which read as follows :- “7.2. From the record, we find that the agricultural land wasowned by the assessee's father. However, the assessee has notclaimed such an agricultural income from his father either inthe earlier assessment years or in the succeeding years. Overand above the assessee's father is neither filing return ofincome nor any statement of account including income andexpenditure statement of working of his agricultural incomehas been furnished by the assessee either before Authoritiesbelow or before us so as to ascertain the correct amount ofagricultural income. It is noticed that the assessee has failed toproduce material documentary evidence to proof cultivation ofagricultural produce by way of Khasra Khatauni, source ofirrigation (tube well/canal), evidence on cold storage etc. tojustify the cash deposits in the aforesaid joint bank account inwhich even the cash deposits do not correlate with theproceeds emanating from Mandi Parishad. Therfore, theagricultural income claimed from the sale of accumulatedproduce of two and a half years in between March 2010 toOctober, 2010 towards cash deposit in the bank account inanticipation to corresponding withdrawals to the agriculturaloperations to be carried out for earning such volume ofagricultural income of Rs. 15,02,220/- is rightly disbelieved bythe ld. CIT (A), to demonstrate availability of cash Rs.14,31,582/- for investment in margin money of share tradingbusiness.(ABP. Page 9) 8.It is evident from the above that for the purpose of claimingthe benefit of the agriculture income, it is necessary to producethe material evidence to substantiate claim of agriculturalincome for the assessment year under consideration. Further,the assessee should maintain the accounts pertaining to entireagriculture activity. In the instant case, no account wasmaintained by the assessee. 9.Following the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the caseof “Smt. Prem Sundari vs. CIT”, (supra) we uphold the order ofthe ld. CIT (A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,31,582/-.Accordingly, all the five grounds of the assessee on this issueare dismissed. 10. As regards to the addition of Rs. 43804/- in respect of theaccumulated interest on RD A/c, it is noticed that the aforesaidinterest amount was found credited in the RD bank amount inthe year under consideration by the AO. Since, the assesseefailed to demonstrate on the basis of documentary evidencethat the said Interest income was related to earlier years either before the authorities below or before us and therefore, we areinclined to appreciate the finding of the CIT (A) on this issue aslegal and justified and confirm the addition accordingly. Thisground of appeal is also rejected.” 10. As regards to the addition of Rs. 43804/- in respect of theaccumulated interest on RD A/c, it is noticed that the aforesaidinterest amount was found credited in the RD bank amount inthe year under consideration by the AO. Since, the assesseefailed to demonstrate on the basis of documentary evidencethat the said Interest income was related to earlier years either before the authorities below or before us and therefore, we areinclined to appreciate the finding of the CIT (A) on this issue aslegal and justified and confirm the addition accordingly. Thisground of appeal is also rejected.” 7.In view of the above concurrent findings, we do not findany merit for the purpose of entertaining this appeal, since nosubstantial questions of law are involved. 8.In such circumstances, this appeal is liable to be dismissedand stands, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 13.2.2020Pratima/Neeraj (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.)