TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment in property. The appellant produced the confirmation certificates, bank accounts and source of income of the persons from home the money was taken to invest in property. Yet the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions. iv. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to add any other ground at the time of hearing of the appeal. v. The orders passed by lower authorities are arbitrary and contrary to correct facts and may kindly be set aside or modified in terms of grounds of appeal. (1.1) In this order, the following abbreviations have been used: a. Assessing Officer as AO b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A) c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s (2) The appeal filed by the Assessee is late by 5 days having regard to Section 253(3) of I.T. Act. The Assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The relevant portion of the petition is reproduced as under:- "The appeal bearing number 6909/Del/2014 shoul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntaining following particulars: Copy of written arguments before ITAT Copy of Medical Certificate of Appellant. Copies of A/c of Ultra Home Construction Ltd. Details of Payments & Investment in property. Confirmation of Father & Brother and their ITRs Copies of All Bank Accounts. Copy of Rejoinder to Remand Report. Copy of Judgment of Sarogi Credit Corporation. Copy of Judgment of CIT V/s Daulat Ram Rawat Mull Copy of Judgment of Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT. (3.1) Further, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee also filed the following particulars: Page of Paper Book Date Amount Ch. No. Bank Remark/Source of Credit in Bank 47 21.07.2006 4,00,000.00 130095 HSBC Payment from opening balance of Rs. 4,75,029.00 in saving bank A/c of her own savings 41 28.07.2006 5,00,000.00 00009 Kotak Mahindra Payment from Opening Balance of Rs. 1,54,495.00 in bank. Rs. 3,45,505.00 overdraft by Bank. 42 05.08.2006 5,00,000.00 00010 Kotak Mahindra Payment from Opening Balance of Rs. 82,596.00 in bank. Rs. 4,17,404.00 overdraft by Bank. 43 11.08.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he property was purchased. He also took us through the copies of account statements of the Assessee's banks accounts. The Ld. Counsel, with the help of Paper Book showed us that there were sufficient deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee, carried forward from earlier year, to explain the source of aforesaid cheques ( one cheque of Rs. 1,05,000 from Allahabad Bank and two cheques of Rs. 2,50,000/- each from Punjab National Bank) issued by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for Assessee took us through Paper Book to support his contention that the brought forward opening balance at the beginning of this year in the bank accounts of the had assessee had accumulated over a period of time in past a few years. However, he contended that the deposits made in the bank accounts of the Assessee in earlier years cannot be the subject matter of addition in the year under consideration. The Ld. Counsel for assessee also relied on the written submissions filed in the Paper Book, reproduced below: "Brief Facts of the Case:- The appellant is engaged in the business of Trading/Job Work of readymade ladies garments and home furnishings. The assessee has been filing her Income Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n such a way as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Moti Lai Padam Path Sugar Mills Co., V/s State of U.P., reported in 118 ITR, Page - 330 in which court observed as under:- A common man is not supposed to know each and every law of land while these laws are in abundance and act committed in ignorance of such law would not attract penal provisions. The appellant made proper compliance before the L'd CIT, Appeals, Noida and filed relevant documents and evidences but he allowed the appeal partially only. Merits of the Case:- The appellant purchased a flat in Distt. Ghaziabad and on the basis of which case was selected for scrutiny. The L'd A.O. committed some mistakes in the facts of the case which are being discussed hereunder. The L'd A.O. fixed the value of property as Rs. 51,86,000.00 + Stamp duty of Rs. 3,53,100.00 total Rs.55,39,100.00 whereas the actual value of property was Rs. 35,05,000.00 + Rs. 3,53,100.00 total Rs.38,58,100.00. The value of Rs. 51,86,000.00 was considered for payment of Stamp duty only. The L'd assessing authority increased the value of property by Rs. 16,86,000.00. However, the L'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... her savings and bank a/c Rs. 3,53,100.00 Total Rs. 38,53,100.00 The chart reflecting the payment against the property is being appended herewith for a quick look. Annexure: C The photocopies of confirmation certificates of father and brother alongwith copies of their ITRs and that of appellant are being submitted. Annexure - Dl. D2 Copies of bank A/c of the appellant, Shri Rahul Singh and Shri Pawan Kumar Singh are being appended herewith for your kind reference. Annexure -El. E2 The appellant deposited Rs. 3,59,000.00 with the builder from time to time out of her savings. The appellant incurred Rs. 3,53,100.00 on account of registration expenses including stamp duty. This investment was made by the appellant out of her own income and savings. The L'd assessing authority did not approve the investment of Rs. 3,59,000.00 and Rs. 3,53,100.00 respectively made by appellant out of her own savings stating that the appellant did not file her statement of affairs and bank account. The version of the L'd assessing authority is against facts of the case. The investment of Rs. 3,59,000.00 and Rs. 3,53,100.00 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The L'd assessing officer neither cross examined the brother and father nor got their declarations verified. Therefore rejections of these evidences are against the law and jurisdiction. The amount confirmed by the father and brother can not be suspected and can not be added in the Income of the appellant. The appellant places reliance upon the observations of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of M/s Sarogi Credit Corporation V/s CIT Bihar. The Hon'ble Court held as under: If the person pledges his oath that he has advanced the amount in question to the assessee and his identity is proved, then the burden immediately shifts on to the department to show as to why the assessee's case could not be accepted. The L'd ITO did not question the identity of the father and brother although the copies of their ITRs were filed before him. The defence of appellant is also supported by the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT (Central), Cacutta V/s Daulat Ram Rawatmull, ITR 1973 Vol. 87 at page 351 the court held as under: The onus of proving that the apparent was not the real was on party who claimed it to be so. As it was the depa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which were adequately explained by brought forward opening balances in the assessee's bank accounts in the beginning of the year under consideration; and deposits made in assessee's bank accounts in earlier years cannot be subject matter of addition in the year under consideration. In respect of the cash investment of aforesaid total amount of Rs. 6,53,100/-, made this year is concerned; the contention of the Ld. Counsel for assessee was that the transactions were partly explained by the assessee's cash withdrawals from bank account in earlier years. (3.4) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. DR did not dispute the aforesaid facts advanced by the Ld. Counsel for Assessee and relied on the order of the lower authorities, namely Ld. CIT(A) and AO. (4) We have heard both sides patiently and attentively. We have also considered all the materials on our record. At the time of hearing before us, the relevant facts are not in dispute. Firstly, it is not disputed that the total investment made by the assessee in this year was Rs. 12,58,100/- and the remaining investment was made in earlier years. It is also not disputed that out of the aforesaid investment of Rs. 12,58,100/-, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Y. 2009-10). It is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period. Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. We take strength from decisions reported at Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT 24 ITR 506(SC); ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC); CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44(SC) and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takht Singh 1 ITR 197 (SC) for the proposition that each 'previous year' is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment and further, that the profits made; and the liabilities of losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income of a particular year; unless in accordance with proviso to Section 4(1) of I.T. Act, there is statutory provision to the contrary, authorizing income of a period other than the previous year under consideration to be charged to income-tax (such as Section 71B of I.T. Act and Section 72 of I.T. Act which allow losses to be carried forward). Useful reference may also be made to in the Ratanchand Lallumal 4 ITR 189 (All.), Jagannath Ram Dayal CIT 18 ITR 375 (All.); M.K Muhammad Ibrahim vs. CIT 10 ITR 64 (Mad.), CIT vs. Jug Sah Muni Lal Sah 7 ITR 522 (Patna), CI....