IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.658 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.12.2010 Shri Vinod Garg. -----Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 5.3.2010 in I.T.(SS)A.No.16/DEL/2008 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “a. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in presuming the deposit in the bank account of the wife as that of the appellant. b. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in not following earlier order in similar case. c. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in sustaining the addition u/s 158BC even though no evidence was found as a result of search. I.T.A. No.658 of 2010 d. Whether Tribunal has erred in law in passing perverse order without any evidence.” 2. In pursuance of search at the premises of the assessee, assessment was framed under Section 158BC of the Act, resulting in certain additions including the impugned addition of `2,87,100/-, which has been upheld by the Tribunal as under:- “4. The finding of the Assessing Officer is that “the assessee had deposited Rs.2,87,100/- in the bank account of his wife”. Since it was the assessee who had deposited the amount in the bank account of his wife, it was for the assessee to explain the source thereof. The assessee cannot wash of his hands by saying that since his wife is major and independent, he is not required to explain the source of deposit in the bank account. The decision of Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajesh Mangla is distinguishable on facts. In the said case the Tribunal noted that the wife of the assessee was an LIC Agent and receiving commission income. In the said case it was also found that the deposits in bank account were out of gift received by Smt. Sunita Mangla, wife of the assessee. However, in the present case no explanation is offered regarding the source of assessee to deposit or the source of wife to earn or receive such income. Since finding of the Assessing Officer remains unchallenged, the addition is required to be sustained. As regards deposit in the bank account of the assessee, though it is stated to be out of sale proceeds of the scooter, but since no evidence is filed in this regard to show as to whether the 2 I.T.A. No.658 of 2010 assessee has possessed any scooter, the addition is to be sustained.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee. 4. Only contention put forward is that the impugned finding is perverse as deposit in the bank account of the wife could not be a ground for making addition to the income of the assessee. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court dated 13.8.2007 in I.T.A. No.258 of 2006 CIT v. Mrs. Anju Bhayana and judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. R.M. Patel (HUF (2008) 9 DTR Judgments 260. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. Whether or not a case for addition is made out is a question of fact. The Tribunal has clearly found that deposit in the bank account of the wife was made by the assessee himself and the wife was not able to show any independent source. In these circumstances, the impugned finding cannot be held to be perverse. As regards the judgments relied upon, the same are on individual facts wherein the source of deposit was established unlike the present case. Accordingly, the said judgments are distinguishable. 6. No substantial question of law arises. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 13, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ashwani JUDGE 3