Mr. Om Prakash Bhargava, Gwalior V. ITO, Gwalior

ITA 105/AGR/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0230 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI OM PRAKASH BHARGAVA, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PROP. M/S. SAMIDHA GAS AGENCY, RANGE-3(2), GWALI OR. 64, PREM NAGAR, GWALIOR. (PAN: ABVPB 5346 E). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 15.02.2013 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 24.11.2008 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. A) THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE BEEN ARBITRARY AND UNJUST IN DENYING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLA NT TO DEFEND HIS CASE PROPERLY AND/OR TO PLACE APPROPRIATE EVIDENCES /MATERIAL ON RECORDS. B) THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED B OTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONDUCTING THE APPELLANTS CASE IN EX-P ARTE MANNER BY ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 2 DISREGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORDS AND EVEN BY IGNORING PAST ESTABLISHED HISTORY OF THE APPELLA NT'S CASE. 2. THAT THE VARIOUS UNJUST ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO HAVE BEEN ARBITRARILY SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED C IT(A), GWALIOR BY IMPROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT S CASE, SUBMISSIONS MADE AND MATERIAL/EVIDENCES PLACED ON R ECORDS, WHICH BEING MOST UNREALISTIC, FALLACIOUS AND ILLOGICAL, T HUS DESERVE TO BE DELETED. 3. A) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), GWALIOR HAS ERRED BO TH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ARBITRARY AND UNJUST ADDITI ON OF RS.27,45,100 TOWARDS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS U/S 68 BY BRUSHING ASIDE THE RELEVANT FACTS AND MATERIAL/EVIDENCES PLA CED BEFORE HER. B) THAT THE GENUINENESS OF UNSECURED LOANS AGGREGAT ING TO RS.28,95,400 OBTAINED DURING THE YEAR BY THE APPELL ANT FROM 14 PERSONS AND SIMILARLY REPAYMENT THEREOF AT RS.1,50, 300 BEING ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT BY PLACING RELEVANT EV IDENCES/MATERIAL, THEREFORE THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.27,45,100 BEING NET ACCRETION (RS.28,95,400 MINU S RS.1,50,300) BY PRESUMING THESE TO BE UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS U /S 68 OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. A) THAT THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL AGGREGATING TO RS .16,28,279 INTRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS BUSINESS BEING P ROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO THE RELEVANT EVID ENCES/MATERIAL PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER IN THE LIGHT O F PAST HISTORY OF HIS CASE, THEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), GWALIOR HAS ERR ED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ARBITRARY AND UNJUST ADD ITION OF RS.16,28,279 MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED. B) THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS LAID UPON HIM WITH REGARD TO ESTABLISHING THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL AGGREG ATING TO RS.16,28,279 INTRODUCED BY HIM, THEREFORE BEFORE MA KING ADDITION OF RS.16,28,279 BY TREATING THE SAID CAPITAL INTRODUCE D AS UNEXPLAINED THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED THE PRO PER INVESTIGATION/INQUIRY FOR ARRIVING AT THE TRUE AND CORRECT CONCLUSION. ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 3 5. A) THAT THE VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN T HE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND UNSECURED LOAN ACCOUNTS BEING PROPERLY EXPLAINE D AND VERIFIABLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES/MATERIAL P LACED ON RECORDS AND/OR PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION AND EXPLANATION SU BMITTED WITH REGARD THERETO THUS LEARNED CIT(A), GWALIOR HAS ERR ED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.9,03,000 OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.14,98,835 ARBITRARILY MADE BY THE AO BY TREAT ING THESE TO BE UNEXPLAINED WITHOUT ANY RHYTHM OR LOGICAL REASON. B) THAT IN CASE OF DOUBT ABOUT GENUINENESS OF ANY SUNDRY CREDITOR(S) AND/OR UNSECURED LOAN ACCOUNT(S), THE A UTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD HAVE MADE THE PROPER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION F OR ARRIVING AT THE TRUE AND CORRECT CONCLUSION REGARDING THEIR GENUINE NESS MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS/INFORMAT IONS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THEM. 6. A) THAT THE VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE PROF IT & LOSS A/C OF APPELLANTS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN STYLED AS M/S SA MIDHA GAS AGENCY BEING INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR TH E PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE SAME AND THESE BEING QUI TE REASONABLE LOOKING TO THE TURNOVER, RISE IN THE PRICE INDEX AN D EVEN PAST HISTORY WITH REGARD THERETO, THEREFORE THESE SHOULD HAVE BE EN ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. B) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), GWALIOR HAS BEEN ARBIT RARY AND UNJUST IN SUSTAINING THE ARBITRARY DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,47 ,760 MADE BY THE AO BY ARBITRARILY TREATING 10% OUT OF EXPENSES AGGR EGATING TO RS.14,47,596 INCURRED TOWARDS SALARY, INTEREST, TRA VELLING, REPAIR & MAINTENANCE, TELEPHONE AND TRUCK FREIGHT TO BE UNVE RIFIABLE, EVEN WITHOUT POINTING OUT A SINGLE INSTANCE OF ALLEGED U NVERIFIABLE EXPENSE. C) THAT THE EXPENSES TOWARDS SALARY, INTEREST, TRA VELLING, REPAIR & MAINTENANCE, TELEPHONE AND TRUCK FREIGHT BEING INCU RRED FOR THE LEGITIMATE NEED OF THE BUSINESS AND THESE BEING QUI TE REASONABLE FROM ANY POINT OF VIEW OF APPELLANTS CASE THEREFORE THE RE WAS NO OCCASION FOR MAKING ARBITRARY AND UNJUST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,44,760 BY TREATING 10% OUT OF AFOREMENTIONED EXPENSES AGGREGA TING TO RS.14,47,596 AS UNVERIFIABLE. 7. A) THAT THE VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE PRO FIT & LOSS A/C OF APPELLANTS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN STYLED AS M/S SA MIDHA PETROL ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 4 PUMP BEING INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE SAME AND THESE BEING QUI TE REASONABLE LOOKING TO THE TURNOVER, RISE IN THE PRICE INDEX AN D EVEN PAST HISTORY WITH REGARD THERETO, THEREFORE THESE SHOULD HAVE BE EN ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. B) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), GWALIOR HAS BEEN ARBIT RARY AND UNJUST IN SUSTAINING THE ARBITRARY DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,2 44 MADE BY THE AO BY ARBITRARILY TREATING 10% OUT OF EXPENSES AGGREGA TING TO RS.3,02,447 INCURRED TOWARDS TRAVELLING, SALARY, MI SC. EXPENSES, LEGAL EXPENSES AND STAFF WELFARE TO BE UNVERIFIABLE, EVEN WITHOUT POINTING OUT A SINGLE INSTANCE OF ALLEGED UNVERIFIABLE EXPEN SE. C) THAT THE EXPENSES TOWARDS TRAVELLING, SALARY, M ISC. EXPENSES, LEGAL EXPENSES AND STAFF WELFARE BEING INCURRED FOR THE LEGITIMATE NEED OF THE BUSINESS AND THESE BEING QUITE REASONABLE FR OM ANY POINT OF VIEW OF APPELLANTS CASE THEREFORE THERE WAS NO OCC ASION FOR ARBITRARY AND UNJUST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,244 BY TREATING 10 % OUT OF AFOREMENTIONED EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.3,02,447 AS UNVERIFIABLE. 8. A) THAT THE INTEREST OF RS.1,67,435 PAID ON HOU SING LOAN BEING CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT CORRECTLY AS DEDUCTION STR ICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(1), THE SAME SHOU LD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. B) THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.17,433 OUT OF INTEREST AGGREGATING TO RS.1,67,43 5 PAID ON HOUSING LOAN AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 24(1). 9. A) THAT THE AGRICULTURE INCOME DECLARED AT RS.9 5,670 BY THE APPELLANT BEING QUITE REASONABLE LOOKING TO THE TYP E AND SIZE OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND, PAST HISTORY REGARDING THE SAME A ND RELATED MATERIAL/EVIDENCES, THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW. B) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), GWALIOR HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.95,670 MADE BY THE AO BY ARBITRARILY TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AS INCO ME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES BY COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE RE LATED FACTS AND BY BRUSHING ASIDE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES/MATERIAL PROD UCED IN SUPPORT THEREOF. ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 5 10. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 24 TH NOVEMBER, 2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), GWALIOR IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THAT THE APPELLANT ALSO SEEKS PERMISSION TO MODIFY AND/OR ADDUCE ANY OTHER GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS THE CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MIGHT REQUIRE OR JUSTIFY. 3. NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR A NY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IS RECEIVED. THE CASE IS LISTED ON BOA RD SINCE 03.02.2012. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENTS. F INALLY ON 01.01.2013, ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, LAST OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G WAS GRANTED AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 11.02.2013. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE FIND THAT THIS IS AN OLD CASE AND THE ASSESSEE IS N OT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE US N OR ANY MATERIAL WAS FURNISHED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL BY CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,51,868/- FROM BUSINE SS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.95,670/-. RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 14 3(1) ON 07.08.2006. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AS PER THE GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF CASES UNDER SCRUTINY FOR NON CORPORATE ASSESSEES. THE A.O. PROVIDED VAR IOUS OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMEN TS OF THE NOTICES. HOWEVER, ON SOME OF THE DATES, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTENDED BUT WITHOUT FURNISHING ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 6 ANY DETAILS AND ONLY SEEKING FOR ADJOURNMENTS. THE A.O. FINALLY FIXED THE HEARING FOR 14.12.2007 WITH THE CONDITION THAT IN CASE OF F AILURE TO COMPLY, THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE COMPLETED EX-PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE A.O. NOR COMPLIANCE OF THE NO TICE WAS MADE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE A.O. WAS HAVING NO OTHER ALTERNA TIVE BUT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT ON THE BASI S OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT UNSECURED LOANS HAS BEEN INCREASED FROM RS.29,40,000/- TO RS.56,85,100/ -. QUERY LETTER DATED 25.07.2007 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CO MPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS AND COPY OF ACCOUNT OF PERSONS FROM WHOM UNSECURED LOAN S WERE RAISED DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, WRITTEN REPLY WAS FILED ON 10.08.20 07 BUT DID NOT FURNISH INFORMATION REGARDING QUERIES RAISED BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FURNISHED REGARDING GENUINEN ESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.27,45,100/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 5. ON PERUSAL OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT ADDITION OF RS.16,28,279/- HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED. IN WRITT EN REPLY FILED ON 10.08.2007, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ADDITION OF RS.16,28,279/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE BUILDING LOAN AND PERSONAL LOAN TAKEN FROM STATE BA NK OF INDIA. THE PERSONAL LOAN ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 7 OF RS.10,00,000/- AND HOUSING LOAN OF RS.9,50,000/- HAS BEEN STATED TO BE TAKEN FROM UCO BANK AND STATE BANK OF INDIA RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS STATED THAT HOUSE LOAN AND PERSONAL LOAN WERE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE ACCOUNT OF PROPRIETARY FIRM M/S. SAMIDHA GAS BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURN ISH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. SAMIDHA GAS. IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.16,28,279/-. 6. ON PERUSAL OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS RS.20,98,835/- AFTER CONSIDERING REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 10.08.2007. HOWEVER, THE A.O. CONSIDERED THE OPENING BALANCE OF M/S GMC CONSTRUCTION IN WHICH THE BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCE WAS RS.10,00,000/ - AND THERE WAS A PAYMENT OF RS.4,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR. THE A.O. ACCEPTED T HIS AMOUNT AND, SINCE FOR OTHER ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH COPY OF BANK A CCOUNT OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.14,98,835/- UNDER SECT ION 68 OF THE ACT. 7. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAI LS REGARDING VARIOUS EXPENSES LIKE SALARY, INTEREST ETC. AMOUNTING TO RS .14,47,596/-. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT AND BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. IN ABSENCE OF VERIFICATIO N, THE A.O. DISALLOWED 10% OF AMOUNT OF WHICH CALCULATION COMES TO RS.1,44,760/-. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES IN T HE BRANCH ACCOUNT OF M/S. ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 8 SAMIDHA PETROL PUMP. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE COM PLIANCE OF QUERIES RAISED BY THE A.O. THE A.O. DISALLOWED 10% OF THE EXPENSES W HICH COMES TO RS.30,244/-. 8. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 24(1) ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON HOUSING LOAN. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE TOTAL PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN WAS RS.1,40,449/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENC E IN RESPECT OF THE EXCESS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED OF RS.26,986/-. IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.26,986/-. 9. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTI CED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.95,670/-. THE AS SESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS. THE A.O. ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TREATING T HE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE A. O. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE CIT(A) CONS IDERED THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER DATED 14.12.2007 AND ASKED THE A.O. TO SUBMIT THE R EMAND REPORT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND THE REMAN D REPORT OF THE A.O., AFTER NOTING THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS DATES GIVEN BY THE A. O. AT PAGE NOS.3 & 4 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE A.O. HAS P ROVIDED A LARGE NUMBER OF ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 9 OPPORTUNITIES BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES HAVE ALSO BEEN PROV IDED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE AND FURTHER EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF SUBMISSIONS DATED 14.12.2007 ADDRESSED TO THE A.O. HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE GROUND OF NOT PROV IDING PROPER OPPORTUNITIES REMAINS UNSUBSTANTIATED, THEREFORE DOES NOT SURVIVE , MORE SO WHEN FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BY THE CIT(A) BEFORE DECIDI NG THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 11. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.27,45,100/-, THE C IT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTIFY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. THE CIT(A) FURT HER HELD THAT IN CASE OF CASH CREDIT, THE ONUS ENTIRELY LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO P ROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. MERELY BY STATING THAT THE LOANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES DOES NOT E XPLAIN WITH REGARD TO THE THREE CONDITIONS. IT NEITHER PROVES THE IDENTITY O F THE PERSON NOR CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTY NOR DOES IT EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE RES PECTIVE PARTIES WHO HAVE BEEN STATED TO HAVE ADVANCED LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN. ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 10 12. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.16,28,279/- THE CI T(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY STATE D THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM PERSONAL SAVING ACCOUNT. THE CIT( A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY HIM IN BUSINESS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED BY THE CIT(A ) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST OUT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE OBS ERVED THAT HOW THE HOUSE BUILDING ADVANCE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING /CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE ON WHICH EVEN INTEREST UNDER SECTION 24(1) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN CLAIMED, REMAINED UTILISED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AS CONTENDED BY THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. THE CIT(A ) HELD THAT THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL A S UNEXPLAINED. 13. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF 14,98,830/-, THE CIT( A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O. SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.9,03,000/- AND RELIEF OF RS.5,95,835/- WAS ALLOWED. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED TH E ORDER OF THE A.O. ACCEPTING ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND ON VERIFICATION IT WAS F OUND THAT RS.5,95,835/- WAS THE OPENING BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD FROM LAST YEAR. HO WEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY INFORMATION AND DETAILS REGARDING TH E IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR EVEN AT THE TIME OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR RS.9,03,000/-. ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 11 14. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.1,44,760/- AND RS. 30,244/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES, THE CIT(A) SPECIFICAL LY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BUT THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE DISA LLOWANCE OF 10% OUT OF EXPENSES WAS REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSE S AS THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED REMAINED TOTALLY UNVERIFIABLE IN ABSENCE OF BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND RELEVANT VOUCHERS. 15. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.26,986/-, THE CIT (A) ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.9,553/- AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISS IONS AND A.O.S REMAND REPORT. 16. IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE CIT(A) C ONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY MATE RIAL EITHER IN SUPPORT OF CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS OR GROWING OR SELLING A GRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, THE A.O. IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH NECESSARY MATERIAL B EFORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND EVEN BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ITA NO.105/AGR/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 12 ACCOUNT BEFORE THE A.O. IN THE COMPELLING CIRCUMST ANCES, THE A.O. MADE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A ), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND AFTER CALLING FOR THE REM AND REPORT FROM THE A.O., DECIDED THE ISSUES. IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT EVEN AT THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS . AS STATED ABOVE THAT BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY CONTRAR Y MATERIAL TO THE FINDING OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY MAT ERIAL TO THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WE HAVE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A). 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY