TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., is condoned. ITA No. 368 of 2015 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 6.3.2014 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 520/CHD/2012, for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i. Whether the impugned order is perverse and contrary to record? ii. Whether the Ld. Tribunal has passed the impugned order on assumption and surmises? iii. Whether the appellant is liable to pay income tax when undisputedly appellant has sold a piece of land? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure A-3) at a total income of Rs. 13,77,990/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal, Annexure A-4, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity "the CIT(A)"]. Along with the appeal, the assessee also attached a certificate (Annexure A-5) received from State Bank of India under RTI information that the cheque mentioned in the sale deed was never encashed. She also filed statement of account dated 17.4.2012 (Annexure A-6) showing the details of deposit and available cash with her during the assessment year 2008-09. The CIT(A) vide order dated 25.4.2012 (Annexure A-7) dismissed the appeal holding that the assessee had failed to prove t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.50 lacs were made resulting in profit of Rs. 1,54,690/-. The explanation of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer who held Rs. 12,12,000/- as unexplained deposits/investment in the bank. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer are as under:- "3.2. This explanation on behalf of the assessee is not acceptable. As per the copy of the sale deed, the assessee received the entire sale proceeds of Rs. 10,00,000/- through cheque no. 684555 dated 14.09.2007. This amount is no where reflected in the above mentioned bank account. Further, the copy of sale account has also been filed during the assessment proceedings as per which the total sales during the year were Rs. 14,49,820/- from which profit is shown to be Rs. 1,54,96....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no cash deposit of Rs. 10 lacs in Centurion Bank of Punjab on 14.09.2007. The dates of deposit and the availability of cash do not tally either for sale of plot or gross receipts of boutique. The appellant has failed to explain the entries of cash deposits in her bank account. Therefore, the appellant has failed to provide NEXUS between the cash availability and Bank deposits. As a result, the addition of Rs. 12,12,000/- is confirmed on account of unexplained deposits/investments in the bank." 7. The Tribunal has affirmed the aforesaid findings of the CIT (A) by observing that even if it is assumed that certificate is correct and bearer of this property Shri Rajiv Kalra issued two bearer cheques No. 684557 and 684558, then also it was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14.09.2007 i.e. Rs. 9 lacs from encashment of two cheques and Rs. 1 lakh as cash payment, then why only Rs. 4.05 lacs was deposited and then money has been deposited in various installments as stated above. No explanation was given for this discrepancy. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessee has not been able to satisfactorily explain the deposits of cash and accordingly we confirm the order of CIT(A)." 8. The authorities below on appreciation of material on record have concurrently recorded that Rs. 12,12,000/- was unexplained deposits/ investment in the bank of the assessee. Nothing could be shown that the approach of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal was erroneous or perverse except only an effort was made to reappreci....