Addition for cash deposit in joint bank account with grandfather upheld. High Court rejected the plea that the assessee was only helping his old grand-father for operating the bank account.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2252 (2018) (03) HC
The appellant assessee was aggrieved by the order of the ITAT in confirming addition as income from undisclosed sources of the cash deposits in the joint account with grandfather.
The assessee had filed the return showing income under the head `salary’ only. The case was taken up for scrutiny.
During the assessment proceedings, in spite of specific queries in the questionnaire and in subsequent letters, the appellant never disclosed the said bank account to the Income Tax Authorities.
However, he authorities had Annual Information Return (AIR) information. The appellant denied having any such joint account with anyone, he was confronted with the bank statement and asked for the source of cash deposits made.
At that stage, the assessee replied that the account was of his maternal grandfather, who expired and all transactions was related to his grandfather only. It was stated that his name was added just to assist his 85 years old maternal grand-father for operating the bank account.
In his statement, the appellant had stated that the source of income of his grand-father was only rental income of Rs. 3,630/- per month which did not support the cash deposits of Rs. 14,40,000/- made in the said joint account. It was further noted that even after the death of his grandfather, the appellant was continuously operating the account.
In appeal before the CIT (A), the appellant adduced additional evidence in the shape of bank statement and balance sheet of the firm in which his maternal grandfather of the appellant, was stated to be a partner. The bank statement only showed that apart from other deposits, there were cash deposits. The appellant never proved that the amounts deposited were from the sources of income of his grandfather. The retirement deed was filed showing that his grandfather as retired from the firm and the balance sheet filed showed that there was capital of Rs. 4,46,615/-. No proof was adduced to show that the standing capital amount was re-paid by the firm. There was no evidence regarding the date of payment or mode of payment from the firm to his grandfather. The cash book of the grandfather showing an opening balance of Rs. 8,50,528/- was rejected as baseless since there was no roof of entries or source of opening balance. Thus, the addition was affirmed by the CIT (A).
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the AO and the CIT (A) regarding addition made.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the assessee kept on denying that he had any joint account with his grand-father. His claim that his name was added in the account only for helping his old grand-father for operating the account is belied by the fact that the ration card produced showed that his grandfather was staying with his two sons who could have helped him for operating the account. The said grandfather had his own PAN number, yet PAN number of the appellant was mentioned in the bank account.
Also, the explanation that the grandfather was partner in a firm was of no help, as no income tax returns of the firm were produced. There was no evidence to show that the said capital was ever received by the said grandfather. The capital account produced was a self serving capital account prepared but the appellant failed to establish that his grandfather had any other source of income, except the rental income of Rs. 3,630/- per month.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that the view taken by the Tribunal was a possible view and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse.
The question raised by the appellant were rejected as being not a question of law.
