- (1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) PURSUANT to a search and seizure operation conducted on 21.11.1996 an amount of Rs. 5,24,546/ - was found in three accounts of Mr. Sudama Singh held jointly with his wife and sons. This amount was in deposit with the Canara Bank of Jamshedpur. A notice Under Section 158BC was issued to Mr. Sudama Singh asking him to file a return for the block period 01.04.1986 to 21.11.1996. Thereupon Mr. Sudama Singh filed a Return of income on 24.07.1997 in the status of HUF showing himself as Karta. No return was filed by him in his individual capacity. Against the assessment of Sudama Singh (individual), the matter was taken to the I.T.A.T. by way of IT(SS) A. No. 100/Pat/1997. It was pleaded by Mr. Sudama Singh that the deposits, earning interest income, was made out of agricultural income of Sudama Singh (HUF). The plea was accepted by the Tribunal which decided the appeal by order dated 27 -9 -2001, observing that the interest be deleted from the block return under consideration i.e. Sudama Singh (individual), and the same may be considered in the hands of Sudama Singh (HUF). Thereafter a notice dated 28 -3 -2003 (Annexure 3 to this Appeal) was issued to Sudama Singh (HUF). At the top of the notice it is mentioned that it is Under Section 158BC read with Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act. However, in the body of the notice Section 158BC has been scored out and only Section 158BD is indicated. Taking advantage of this technical lapse a reply dated 21 -7 -2003 was submitted by the new Karta of HUF namely Akhilesh Kumar Singh, S/O Sudama Singh saying that a Return of income had already been filed on 24 -7 -1997 and that the assessment of HUF is barred by limitation. It was also stated in that reply that Section 158BD did not apply and it was prayed that the proceeding be dropped. At this point, it may be pointed out that in the assessment order of Sudama Singh (individual) which is dated 27.11.1997 the A.O. had observed as follows: The Assessee in his reply has submitted that from his salary tax was regularly deducted by the concerned Department but he has furnished no evidence in support of the contention that there has ever been any deduction of tax at source from his salary. Furthermore, the Assessee has submitted that he or his HUF has never filed any return. Mr. Sudama Singh, his wife Mrs. Chameli Singh and his two sons Mr. A.K. Singh & Mr. Sant Kumar Singh were summoned for their personal appearance but only Mr. Sudama Singh and his wife Mrs. Chameli Singh appeared. Their statements were taken which are placed on record. From the statements in becomes clear that Mr. Sudama Singh was posted at Chandil (near Jamshedpur) from 1980 to 1984. Here it is worth mentioning that most of the KD Rs were made in Canara Bank, Jamshedpur during this period only. The contention of Mr. Sudama Singh that all the money deposited are from agricultural income does not appear to be tenable in light of his own statements and other circumstantial factors. In his statement he has said that his agricultural income for every year comes to Rs. 4 to 5 lakhs. But the surprising part of this affair is that he has never deposited any sum in any bank a/c from his agricultural income prior to 1982, even though as per evidence he has been having agricultural land since 1943. If anybody has got an idea of bank accounts and he is getting Rs. 4 to 5 lakhs every year from agricultural income he must deposit at least some part of it in it. From the documents on record it becomes very easy to conclude that there is sudden deposit of amounts during the period when Mr. Sudama Singh was posted at Chandil (near Jamshedpur). The trend of deposit in the bank accounts shows that it is not exactly from agricultural income because had it been from agricultural income there would have been a more or less consistent trend of deposit and withdrawal of money since 1943 itself. In his statement Mr. Sudama Singh does not appear to be consistent in the sense that he being an engineer is supposed to be enlightened enough to know as to how in todays advance world money is kept. His contention is quite unnatural. In my opinion Mr. Sudama Singh has tried to divert his undisclosed income by showing it as agricultural income of HUF. The statement of Mrs. Chameli Singh also reveals that she had nothing to do with any of the accounts nor she had ever got any idea about any accounts. All her accounts were dealt by Mr. Sudama Singh and she has been no more than a rubber stamp as far as handling of any account is concerned. This directly points to the fact that all the money shown as debited and credited must have been done by none but by Mr. Sudama Singh himself. Because his two sons Mr. A.K. Singh and Mr. Sant Kr. Singh were not produced, Mrs. Chameli Singh's statements definitely give a very important clue to operation of various accounts because in almost all the accounts apart from Mr. Sudama Singh either his wife or his two sons figure. Therefore, I conclude that the income shown as HUF income from agriculture is absolutely fabricated one to thwart the lawful point of Income Tax for escaping from payment of tax on the amount reflected in various S.B. A/Cs and KD Rs. Mere having agricultural land is not sufficient proof to show any deposit as income from agriculture. Apart from submitting agricultural land papers the Assessee does not have any evidence in support of his contention. Moreover, the circumstantial factors too go against the Assessee's contention. The details of the interest accrued on the said F. Ds during the various assessment years of the block period have been incorporated in the Annexure -A attached herewith. It can be seen therefore that the interest amount in every year was much beyond the exemption limit. Had it been the income of the HUF from disclosed source i.e. agricultural land the HUF should have furnished the returns for all these years but admittedly it did not do so. It therefore, further goes against the Assessee's submission. Therefore, the KD Rs and S.B. A/C are held as being owned by the Assessee.
(3.) TO continue with the facts, the A.O. assessed the HUF. Against the order of assessment of HUF an appeal was filed before the I.T.A.T. which has been dismissed by the I.T.A.T. by order dated 13.06.07. The said order of I.T.A.T. is under challenge in this appeal.;