ARTI GUPTA, MEERUT V. ITO, WARD- 1(1), MEERUT

ITA 1209/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4520 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KOUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: P S KASHYAP
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Non compliance; Competent authority; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH D+SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1209/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT. ARTI GUPTA, MEERUT, C/O KASHYAP & CO., CA, 214, CITY CENTER, BEGUM BRIDGE ROAD, MEERUT. PAN- ASGPG 9318K (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), MEERUT. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. P.S. KASHYAP, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SH. KOUSHLENDRA TIWARI, SR. DR ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), MEERUT DATED 25.01.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : A) THE ORDER PASSED U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3 ) OF THE ACT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER INCOME TAX ACT,1961 FOR THE FOLL OWING REASONS: 1) THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 DT 21.03.2017 WAS ISS UED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION I.E. ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITE D CASH OF RS 27,62,500/- IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. 2) THAT THE LD. AO FAILED TO BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORDS WHICH SHOWS, INCOME OF ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. DATE OF HEARING 13.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 .10.2018 ITA NO. 1209/DEL/2018 2 3) THAT BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 NO SATISF ACTION WAS RECORDED BY LD. AO. NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS O F SUSPICION & IN MECHANICAL MANNER. EVEN THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE OF S ECTION 151(2) OF THE ACT. 4) THAT THE LD. AO HAS DISPOSED OF OBJECTIONS TO NO TICE U/S 148 BY A NON-SPEAKING ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS THE INITIATION AS WELL AS FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO. B) THAT ON FACTS & IN LAW ADDITIONS OF RS 15,00,000 /- U/S 68 IS TOTALLY WRONG & UNJUSTIFIED. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY UNSECURED LOAN, LD. AO HAS WRONGLY TREATE D SUM OF RS 15,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF TH E ACT. THEREFORE, ADDITIONS OF RS 15,00,000/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 09.03.2011 DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,83,770/-. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE RETAI L BUSINESS OF BUILDING MATERIAL AND FILED RETURN U/S. 44AF. SHE IS ALSO DE RIVING VOCATIONAL INCOME, FOR WHICH SHE HAS SHOWN TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,24,144/- A GAINST GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.1,95,850/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED AIR INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.27,62,500/- IN HE R S/B ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH PNB DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A SSESSING OFFICER ISSUED QUERY LETTER ON 06.01.2017 TO THE ASSESSEE FOR VERI FICATION OF THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE. A REMINDER WAS ALSO SENT ON 20.02.2017 FOR COMPLIANCE OF THE EARLI ER LETTER, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TURN UP TO COMPLY. LATER ON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE CASE AFTER RECORDING FOLLOWING REASONS AND OBTAINING APP ROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 : AS PER AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE, AS SESSEE DEPOSITED CASH RS. 27,62,500/- IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH PU NJAB NATIONAL BANK. A ITA NO. 1209/DEL/2018 3 QUERY LETTER DATED 06.01.2017 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASS ESSEE FOR VERIFICATION OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. NO COMPLIANCE MADE BY THE A SSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, REMINDER LETTER DATED 20.02.2017 WAS ISSUED TO ASSE SSEE FOR COMPLIANCE AGAIN NO COMPLIANCE MADE BY HIM. NON COMPLIANCE OF THE AFORESAID LETTERS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT MADE BY HIM IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. FURTHER, DUE TO NON- COMPLIANCE, PAN OF THE ASSESSE E IS NOT KNOWN, HENCE IT IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE WHETHER RETURN WAS FI LED OR NOT. HENCE, ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MAT ERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT CASH DEPOS IT OF RS. 27,62,500/- IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS CHARGEA BLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF IT ACT, 1961 FOR A.Y. 2010-11. INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AMOUNTING TO OR LIKELY TO AMOUNT TO ONE LAKH RUPEES OR MORE FOR A.Y. 2010-11. I, THEREFORE, CONSIDER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR IS SUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 21.03.20 17, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 09.03.2011 MAY BE CONSIDERED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148. SUBSEQUENTLY, OTHER STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ALSO ISSUED. IN REPLY TO THESE NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED AS UNDER : THAT ASSESSEE MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB N ATIONAL BANK, HASTINAPUR. COPY OF THE SAME IS ALREADY FILED WITH YOU. IT WOULD BE SEEN FROM SUCH ACCOUNT THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 27,62,500/- IN CASH. OUT OF SUCH AMOUNT RS. 11,62,500/- IN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE AMOUNT OF RETAIL BUSINESS AND RS. 1,00,000/- (50,000+10,000+40,000) DEPOSITED ON 24.0 9.2009, 25.09.2009 & 29.09.2009 AGAINST CASH WITHDRAWN ON 23.09.2009. FURTHER, THERE IS CASH DEPOSITED OF RS. 15 LACS ON 29.09.2009, IN THI S REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT INDIAN OIL CORPORATION HAD GIVEN ADVERTISEMENT IN NEWS PAPER AMUR UJJALA ON 26.08.2009FOR RETAIL OUTLET UNDER KISAN S EWA KENDRA. IN SAID ADVERTISEMENT AT S.NO-154 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION WA NTED TO SET UP ITS FUEL FAILING STATION AT LATIFPUR, HASTINAPUR, MEERUT. IN PROCESS OF APPLYING ITA NO. 1209/DEL/2018 4 RETAIL OUTLET OF INDIAN OIL AT LATIFPUR, ASSESSEE & 3 OTHER NAMELY GOPAL GOTAM, KULDEEP & DINESH SHARMA DECIDED TO APPLY FOR THIS RETAIL OUTLET OF INDIAN OIL. ALL HAD AGREED TO CONTRIBUTES RS. 5LAC EACH AS CAPITA! CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS RETAIL OUTLET AT LATIFPUR. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE WAS DESIRED TO APPLY FOR RETAIL OUTLET IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND IN CONNECTION THIS SHE OPENED HER BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, HASTINAPUR ON 15.09.2909. SUBSEQUENT LY ASSESSEE OBTAINED DEMAND DRAFT NO-733324 DATED 25.09.2009 FO R RS. 100/- IN FAVOUR OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION FROM PUNJAB NATION AL BANK TOWARDS APPLICATION FEE. LATER ON, ON 25.09.2009 THESE THREE PERSONS SHOWED THEIR INTEREST IN SETTING UP RETAIL OUTLET ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEE AN D THEY HAVE DIRECTLY DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 15 LAC IN ASSESSEES BANK AC COUNT. BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW HER INTEREST AND SHE SAID THAT SHE WILL TA KE CALL AFTER ALLOTMENT OF THE RETAIL OUTLET BY IOC AND REFUNDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15LACS ON SAME DATE I.E. 29.09.2009 AS DULY EVIDENT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN SUPPORT OF ABOVE FACTS COPY OF NEWS PAPER DATED 26.08.2009, CO PY OF APPLICATION TO IOC ARE FILED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. ORIGI NAL COPY OF NEWS PAPER IS PRODUCE HERE FOR YOUR VERIFICATION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS & SUBMISSIONS CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 27,62,500/- DEPOSITED IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK BY ASSESSEE IS FU LLY EXPLAINED AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE IS CALLED FOR . IN CASE ANY OTHER INFORMATION /EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE CON VEYED. STATEMENTS OF SHRI GOPAL GAUTAM WERE RECORDED WHO A DMITTED TO HAVE DEPOSITED RS.5 LACS IN THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CREDITW ORTHINESS BY FURNISHING ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPORT TH E SOURCES NARRATED BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE ALSO FAILED TO FILE COMPLETE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS ALONGWITH THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS ETC. SO TO AS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF RE MAINING TWO CREDITORS SH. KULDEEP AND DINESH KUMAR SHARMA AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. HE, THEREFORE, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT OUT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.27,62,500/-, AS THE REMAINING AMOUNT WAS CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. ITA NO. 1209/DEL/2018 5 CIT(A) IN APPEAL AND MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WITH VARIOUS CASE LAWS ON VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS ON MERITS. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE, AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE I MPUGNED ORDER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF VARIOUS GROUNDS BEFORE US HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING PROCEEDINGS ON THE PREMISE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 ONLY ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATIO N, WHICH DOES NOT FURNISH ANY MATERIAL FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME; NON-RECORDIN G OF SATISFACTION BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 AND NON-COMPLIANCE OF S ECTION 151(2) AND DISPOSAL OF OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE U/S. 148 BY A NON-SPEAKING ORDER. IN SUPPORT THE LD. AR HAS RELIED ON PLETHORA OF DECISIONS, AS CITED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) AND MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ON MERITS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS SUPPO RTED BY STATEMENTS OF ONE OF THE CREDITORS AND THEIR CONFIRMATIONS TO ESTABLI SH THE CASH CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AS GENUINE. HE RELIED ON THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT PROPER PROCEDURE HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147/148 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORT HINESS OF THE CREDITORS AT ALL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE BEING UNABLE TO DISCHARGE T HE ONUS THAT LAY ON HIM U/S. 68, THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE QUITE JUSTI FIED TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION ON MERITS ALSO. ITA NO. 1209/DEL/2018 6 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE I MPUGNED ORDER AND THE DECISIONS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WE FIND NO INF IRMITY IN THE DECISION REACHED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE ATTENDING FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. ON THE LEGAL ASPECT OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS ON MERIT OF ADDITION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN COGENT REASONS TO REJECT VARIO US PLEAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS TAKEN IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE U S. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER : 4.1 THE AO GOT INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSI TED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 27,62,500/- IN S/B ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH PNB 2009-10. HE ISSUED QUERY LETTER REGARDING VERIFICATION OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. B UT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE, HE THEREFORE PROCEEDED U/S 147/148 AND COMPLETED ASSES SMENT U/S 147/143(3) MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 15,00,000/-. 4.2 GROUND NO. 1,2,3,4&5 (1) THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE AR THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THAT NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED IN MECHANIC AL MANNER AND ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION. ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN TH AT AO WAS DILIGENT ENOUGH TO ISSUE A QUERY LETTER DT. 06.01.2017 TO THE ASSESSEE, FOR VERIFICATION OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT FACT REGARDING TH E ISSUE OF QUERY' LETTER ITSELF IN NOT DISPUTE. THE LD. AR HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT, THAT TILL SUCH TIME THE AO ISSUED LETTER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE DEPOSIT, IT WAS A CASE OF SUSPI CION AND DOUBT ON PART OF THE AO. HE WAS WANTING SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS A ND VERACITY OF THE TRANSACTION. BUT, WHEN NO RESPONSE TO THE QUERY LETTER WAS RECEI VED THE AO WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT TAXABLE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE HI S SUSPICION GOT CONVERTED INTO A BONA-FIDE BELIEF WHICH WAS EMERGING FROM THE NON- C OMPLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT LED TO BELIEF FORMATION ON PART OF THE AO THAT TAXA BLE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THUS, TO SAY THAT AO HAD PROCEEDED ON REASON TO SUS PECT OR IN A MECHANICAL MANNER WOULD BE A MISPLACED ARGUMENT. THUS, IT IS REJECTED . ITA NO. 1209/DEL/2018 7 NOW COMING TO THE MEETING OF OBJECTIONS RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 AND ON RECEIPT OF REASONS. AFTER PERUSAL OF RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS ON 03.10.2017 WHICH WERE DEALT WITH AND REMOVED BY THE AO ON 6.102017. WHAT IS NOTICED FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE OBJECTIONS IS THAT THE ID. AR INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE AND BRING MATERIAL ON RECORD TO REBUT THE REASON TO BELIEVE HAD CHOSEN TO RAISE A PLETHORA OF LEGAL ISSUES, CITING SEVERAL CASE LAWS, WITHOUT DRAWING OUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CASE LAWS AND LEGAL CONTENT IONS HAVE ON THE PRESENT CASE. IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE LD. AR TO FACTUALLY REBUT TH E REASONS BY WAY OF PROPER EVIDENCE. THE AO HAS GIVEN REASONED FACTUAL REBUTTAL TO THE O BJECTIONS FILED. I SEE NO INFIRMITY IN HIS RESPONSE. THIS CONTENTION AND GROUND OF THE ASS ESSEE THUS FAILS. AS REGARDS NON-ISSUANCE OF SHOW CAUSE I FIND THAT T HE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED U/S 143(3) AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AO HAS NOT MECHANICALLY ADDED THE ENTIRE BANK DEPOSIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED AND ARGUMENTS GIVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT HE HAS ADDED ON 15 LACS OUT OF TOTAL DEPOSIT OF 29 LACS OD D. EVEN OTHERWISE THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ARE A CONTINUATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE HIS POINT . THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AND THEREFORE IT FAILS. 4.3, GROUND NO. 6. ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE OF DEPOSIT IT IS SEEN FOR THE ORDER OF THE A.O. THAT AFTER EXAMINING THE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWAL WITH IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT THAT THE CREDIT OF RS. 15,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM SH. KULDEEP AND GO PAL GOTAM AND DINESH KUMAR SHARMA WAS HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED AS THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PERSONS FROM WHOM ALLEGED LY THIS DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT WAS RECEIVED. IN APPEAL, THE ID. AR HAS MECHANICALLY REPRODUCED T HE ARGUMENTS GIVEN BEFORE THE AO THE ONLY LEGAL OBJECTION RAISED IS THAT AO HAD RECO RDED THE STATEMENT OF GOPAL GAUTAM. BUT THE SAME WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY CROSS EXAMINATION WAS OFFERED OR ALLOWED. HERE, THE ID. AR HAS FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THAT STAT EMENT OF GOPAL GAUTAM WAS I FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT GOPAL GAUTAM DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTION TH; HE WAS INDEED A MAN OF MEANS WHO HAD THE CAPACITY TO FURTHER A SUM OF R: 5,00,000/-TO THE APPELLANT. THE STATEMENT WAS NOT USED BY THE AO TO DRAI ADVERS E INFERENCE. RATHER, IT WAS A STATEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH TH AO DID NOT ACCEPT AS IT WAS A BALD STATEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WAS NO CORR OBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SAME. THUS, THE HON'BLE SC JUDGMENT OF ANDEMAN TIMBER DOE S NOT HAVE IMPLICATION OR ITA NO. 1209/DEL/2018 8 RELEVANCE IN THE MATTER WHERE STATEMENT OF THE WITN ESS WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS THE WITNESS COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONFORMATION FAVORABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BY BRINGING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SAME. IN OTHER TWO CASES ALSO NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT THE PERSONS CLAIMING TO HAV E FORWARDED THE MONIES HAD THE MEANS TO DO SO. THE AR THUS, FAILED TO BRING ANY MA TERIAL ON RECORD TO DISCOUNT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED DEPOS IT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ID . COUNSEL, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FORGOING DISCUSSION THE APPEAL IS REJECTED AND ALL GROUNDS OF ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE INSTANT C ASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ITS REASON ON SOLE RECEIPT OF AIR INFO RMATION WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, BUT BEFORE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147/148, HE ISSUED QUERY LETTERS TO THE ASSESSEE TO VERIFY THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE AT NO POINT OF TIME HAS STATED THAT THE QU ERY LETTER WERE NOT IN THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS HE ASSIGNED ANY REAS ON FOR NOT RESPONDING TO THE SAID VERIFICATION LETTERS. AFTER THESE EXERCISE UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE REASONS RECORDE D WERE REASON TO SUSPECT AND NOT REASON TO BELIEVE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. AS REGA RDS NON-COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 151(2) OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS TAKEN REQUISITE SANCTION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AS RE GARDS THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER TAKING STEPS TO VERIFY THE CASH DEPOSIT, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE, AND AFTER RECORDING THE REASON TO BELIEVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN TH E REASONS RECORDED THAT I, THEREFORE, CONSIDER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148. 6. ON MERITS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABL Y FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS THAT LAY ON HER BY SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ITA NO. 1209/DEL/2018 9 CREDITORS DOES NOT STAND PROVED BY ANY COGENT EVIDE NCE ON RECORD. MERE BALD STATEMENTS OF GOPAL GAUTAM THAT HE DEPOSITED THE SU M OF RS.5 LAKHS TO THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AFTER GETTING THE AMOUNT FROM H IS FATHER OR MOTHER, IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND NO PROO F OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF OTHER TWO CREDITORS IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN PRESENCE OF ALL THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CAS E, THE DECISIONS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SEVERAL CASES HAVE RIGHTLY NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS RELEVANT TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY CREDI BLE MATERIAL ON RECORD FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE TO DISCARD THE FINDINGS REACHE D BY THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS F OUND DEVOID OF MERITS AND IS THUS, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OCT., 2018. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (L.P. S AHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH OCTOBER, 2018 *AKS* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI