9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sheets whereas the assessee is not filing her wealth-tax returns regularly." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the source of income of the assessee is agriculture income and income from other sources. As per AIR information, there was cash deposits of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the saving bank account of the assessee in Indusind bank, A/c no.0119- J2840-010. The assessee was asked to furnish the source of these cash deposits and in response, the assessee submitted that the source of cash deposit was out of cash in hand in the balance sheet on 31.03.2010 and the copies of balance sheet as on 31.03.2006, 31.03.2007, 31.03.2008, 31.03.2009, 31.03.2010 and 31.03.2011 were submitted. The assessee submitted evidence regarding advance received against sale of agricultural land for Rs. 62,00,00/-, received from D.D. Industries Ltd., on 09.12.2005 and 16.12.2005, and that of Rs. 70,48,112/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- from D.V.M. Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on 15.03.2008 and 10.06.2008. It was submitted and stated that no sale of agricultural land had taken placed due to disputes. The cash deposited by the assessee in her S.B. A/c with Indusind bank was as under: Date Amount (Rs.) 18.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DVM Realtors Pvt. Ltd., (Bhargava Builders Pvt Ltd) and received a sum of Rs. 70,48,112/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- on 15-03-2008 and 10-06-2008 and the assessee had filed evidence in this regard namely the copy of the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 15-03-2008 executed by the defendants (Shri Joginder Singh, Ms Jogan Nijjar, Ms Chandan Nijjar, Ms Roohi Nijjar, and Ms Punnu Nijjar) in favour of the plaintiff (M/s Bhargava Builder Pvt Ltd) with respect to land measuring 170 Kanal 6 Marla situated village Meharbanpura, Tehsil and District Amritsar / suit for mandatory in junction. The assessee also submitted the copy of her bank account no. 0119-J 72840-010 in Indusind Bank for the period 01-01- 2005 to 18-11-2010 which reveals the credit of the above amounts. It was submitted that the assessee had been filing her income tax returns regularly from A Y 1995-96 onwards and she maintains her personal books of accounts and draws her personal balance sheet. That the personal balance sheets were filed by her with the department right from A Y 1995-96 onwards upto A Y 2006-07 and thereafter the assessee started filing her returns online and the balance sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere. It was further argued the AO had reopened the Wealth Tax cases of the Assessee of AY 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 85 2011-12 u/s 17 of W T Act to reassess the escaped wealth. That the Assessee filed the wealth tax returns based on the same balance sheets and the assessments under wealth tax act were framed by the W.T.O. and the copies of the wealth tax assessment orders for A Y 2007-08 to 2011-12, alongwith copies of statements of taxable wealth were submitted. It was submitted that the same AO had accepted cash in hand as per the balance sheet of the Assessee for Wealth Tax purposes and assessed the same as Assessee's Wealth, and therefore the AO cannot have two standards , one for Income Tax Assessment and the other for The assessment order and the written submissions of the appellant are considered. The AO has not accepted the cash in hand appearing in her balance sheet at Rs. 131,11,293/- for the year ending 31-03-2010, which had been generated from year to year out of cash withdrawal from her own bank account in Indusind Bank and reflected in her cash book of FY 2005-06 to 2009-10. The AO has however not led/produced any evidence to show that the cash withdrawal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - had been spent/invested by her during the F Y 2010-11 and was therefore not available with her for depositing Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 25,00,000/- on 18-08- 2010, 04-09-2010 & 18-11-2010 respectively in her SB a/c in Indusind Bank, even though after gap of 8 months. It was not mandatory under any law that the individual has to keep his /her savings in the bank account only and not as cash in hand as held by Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ITO vs Mrs Deepali Sehgal in ITA no. 5660/Del/2012 dated 05- 09-2014. Therefore in view of the various decisions of Hon'ble High Court and ITAT, Amritsar cited by the appellant (Supra), and the above discussion, and the acceptance of cash in hand as on 31-03-2010 by the Department in Wealth Tax Assessment for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the case of the appellant, the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 25,00,000/- on 18-08-2010, 04-09-2010 8s 18-11-2010 respectively in the S.B account of the appellant in Indusind Bank, out of the opening cash in hand at Rs. 1,31,11,293/- as on 01-04-2010 as per cash book and balance sheet as on 31-03- 2010 is upheld and the addition of Rs. 50,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash book and balance-sheet, to be a concocted story. The assessee, on the other hand, in face of no evidence to the contrary brought by the AO, amply proved the source of the deposit in her bank account. The reason of the AO for not accepting this deposit was also a flimsy reason, i.e., no prudent person would keep such heavy cash as cash in hand for 17 to 18 months. Such observation of the AO gets annulled by the balance sheets placed on record by the assessee over the years, every year. The amount of Rs. 1,31,11,293/- was reflected in the assessee's balance sheet as on 31.03.2010. Therefore, she proved this amount as cash in hand and the AO did not bring anything on record to the effect that the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- had, in fact, come from any other source. 8. It also remains undisputed that the assessee's Wealth Tax cases for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12 stood reopened. The basis of the Wealth Tax returns filed by the assessee was the very same balance sheets, as referred to above. For Wealth tax purposes, it is remarkable, it was the same AO, who had accepted the assessee's cash in hand, which was according to her balance sheet. The amount was, in fact, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requirement for the assessee to make such a disclosure. As per the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 'Mrs. Deepali Sehgal', dated 05.09.2014, in ITA No.5660/Del/2012, as correctly taken note of and followed by the ld. CIT(A), it is not mandatory under any law that an individual has to keep his/her savings in the bank account only and not as cash in hand. In 'Shiv Charan Dass vs. CIT', 126 ITR 263 (P&H), in this regard, it has been held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that the onus is on the Department to show that the explanation of the assessee should not be accepted.Further, it is trite that nobody can be asked to prove a negative, as was sought to be done by the AO. 12. The department is also wrong in contending that since the assessee is not filing her wealth tax returns regularly, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting that the assessee maintains personal books of account and draws personal balance sheet. Here, it needs to be reiterated that it is the department itself, which has accepted the balance sheets drawn by the assessee in her personal capacity and that for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12, in the wealth tax cases of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
