Jasbir Singh (HUF), Samana V. ITO, Patiala

ITA 1261/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1430 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ JAIN
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: SMC BENCH: CHANDIGARH BEFORE HONBLE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM ITA NO. 1261/CHANDI/2010 (AY: 2002-03) JASBIR SINGH (HUF) V I.T.O. WARD 3, PATIALA C/O SARUP SINGH TPT CO BHAWANIGARH ROAD SAMANA PAN: AAAHJ 6239 A ITA NO. 1258/CHANDI/2010 (AY: 2002-03) GAUTAM KUMAR V I.T.O. WARD 3, PATIALA C/O RAJINDER PAL PREM PAL NEAR POST OFFICER SAMANA PAN: AIOPK 6378 F ITA NO. 1260/CHANDI/2010 (AY: 2002-03) INDERPAL SINGH (HUF) V I.T.O. WARD 3, PATIALA C/O SARUP SINGH TPT BHAWANIGARH ROAD SAMANA ITA NO. 1262/CHANDI/2010 (AY: 2002-03) PRIPTPAL SIGH (HUF) V I.T.O. WARD 3, PATIALA C/O SARUP SINGH TPT CO BHAWANIGARH ROAD SAMANA PAN: AADHP 0871M ITA NO. 1263/CHANDI/2010 (AY: 2002-03) RAMINDER SINGH V I.T.O. WARD 3, PATIALA HOUSE NO. 260/8 BEHIND POT OFFICE KRISHANAN BASTI SAMANA PAN: ANRPS 5780 K APPELLANT BY: SHRI PANKAJ JAIN RESPONDENT BY: SMT. SARITA KUMARI ORDER ALL THE AFORESAID APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE RE SPECTIVE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 24.8.2 010. ALL THE APPEALS RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEP T FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT. IT IS, THEREFORE, CONVENIENT TO DISPOSE OFF ALL THE APPEAL S BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 1261 & OTHERS/CHANDI/2010 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY JASBIR SINGH (HUF), I.T.A NO. 1261/ CHANDI/2010, SHOULD BE TAKEN AS LEAD CASE AND THE DECISION RENDERED IN THAT CASE SH OULD BE FOLLOWED MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THE OTHER FOUR APPEALS. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE SUG GESTION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE A PPEAL FILED BY JASBIR SINGH (HUF), I.T.A NO. 1261/CHANDI/2010, IS BEING TAKEN UP AS LE AD CASE. SHRI JASBIR SINGH (HUIF) I.T.A NO. 1261/CHANDI/2010 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1 BECAUSE THE ORDERS ARE UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS AND LAW FOR UPHOLDING THE INITIATION AND CONCLUSION OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,354/- MAKING AN ADDITION FOR RS. 2,50,000/ - WHEREBY THE JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT IS UNDER CHALLENGE. 2 BECAUSE THE REASONS TO BELIEF AND REASONS TO SUSPECT ARE DISCERNIBLE FROM EACH OTHER ALONG WITH THE CHALLENGE CONTAINING BREACH TO THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW REGARDING CROSS EXAMINATION OPPORTUNITY, MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS AND THE RETURN OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR BEING THE EXISTING MATE RIAL ON RECORD. 3 ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION FOR RS. 2,50,000/- IS BEING CHALLENGE ON F ACTS AND LAW. 4 BECAUSE THE TELESCOPING OF FUNDS AVAILABLE AS PE R THE RETURN OF INCOME AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS BEING PRAYED FOR VACATION OF THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT. 4. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPEAL ARE THAT THE RET URN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139 ON 25.10.2002 RETURNING HIS TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 50,354/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF INCOME-TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FOR A SUM OF RS. 2,50,000/- THROUGH INSTRUMENT NO. 148638 DATED 6.9.2001 FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 15942 OF SHRI DEEPAK GUPTA MAINTAINED WITH JAI LUXMI COOPERATIVE BANK, FATEHPURI DELHI WHICH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF PATIALA, ADB BRANCH, SAMANA. THE INFORMATION SO RECEIVED FROM TH E DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION) THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WAS CONSI DERED BY THE AO AND, ON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, THE AO CAME TO FORM A PRIMA FACIE BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE THEREF ORE INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS 1261 & OTHERS/CHANDI/2010 3 U/S 148 HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 5 OF THE APPEL LATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH READS AS UNDER: REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASSESS EE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02, RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THE DETAIL OF WHICH ARE GIVEN BELOW: S NO NAME OF THE BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE RED THE ENTRY NAME OF THE BANK OF THE BENEFICIARY IN WHICH ENTRY IS RECEIVED .E. INSTRUMENT IS DEPOSITED BANK BRANCH OF THE BENEFICIARY IN WHICH ENTRY IS RECEIVED VALUE OF THE ENTRY RECEIV -ED INSTRUMENT NO. BY WHICH ENTRY IS RECEIVED DATE ON WHICH ENTRY IS RECEI -VED NAME OF THE OPERATOR FROM WHICH ENTRY IS GIVEN NAME OF BANK OF THE ENTRY OPERATOR FROM WHICH ENTRY IS GIVEN BANK BR.OF THE ENTRY FROM WHICH ENTRY IS GIVEN A/C NO. OF THE ENTRY OPERATOR 1 JASBIR SINGH DDSBI SAMANA 250625 148638 6.9.01 DE EPAK JAI GUPTA FATEH -PURI LAXMI BANK 15942 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE THEREFORE, REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT AS MENTIONED ABOVE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF I NCOME-TAX ACT ARE INITIATED. NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT H AS BEEN ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE WORTHY JOINT COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA RANGE, PATIALA VIDE HIS OFFICE LETTER F. NO. JCIT/P ATIALA-RNG/W-3/2008-09/2725 DATED 26.3.2009. 5. UPON BEING SERVED WITH THE NOTICE U/S 147/148, T HE ASSESSEE CALLED FOR A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WHICH WAS DULY SU PPLIED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE UPON WHICH THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148. THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO WERE , HOWEVER, REJECTED BY HIM FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. AS REGARDS THE TAXATION OF THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147/148, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION AS REGARDS SOURCE, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY NOR PRODUCED THE CREDITOR FROM WHOM THE MONEY THROUGH A CCOMMODATION ENTRY WAS OBTAINED IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY T HE AO TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRY AS UNEXPLAINED AND CONSEQUENTLY ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 1261 & OTHERS/CHANDI/2010 4 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, THE ASS ESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). APROPOS THE ADDITION OF THE IMPUGNED CASH CREDIT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITH T HE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: AS REGARDS, THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BEING REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUN TS OF THE APPELLANT, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS NOT OPPOSED SUCH ADDITIONS NOR HAS HE PUT FORWARD ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, ON MERITS ALSO T HE ADDITIONS ARE SUSTAINED. 8. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, OBJECTED TO THE INITIATIO N OF PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147/148, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ). THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED HIS SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD AND THE APPLICABLE LAW. HE HOWEVER UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCEE DINGS U/S 148 FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN BY HIM IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER MADE ANY SUBMISSION NOR GIVEN ANY EXPLANATI ON TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE IMPUGNED CASH CREDIT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AL SO. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKIN G THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT REBUTTED THE F INDING RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 5 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER, AS REPRODUCED EAR LIER. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS, HOWEVER, STRENUOUSLY CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF I NITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148. WHILE REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS EARLIER MADE BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS BEHALF, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MERELY ACTED UPON THE REFERENCE RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION) AND THEREFORE, THE SATISFACTION REACHED BY HIM U/S 147/148 WAS NOT HIS OWN SATISFACTION BUT BORROWED SATISFACTION. ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS COMPLETE NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO AND THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY HIM U/S 148 WERE VOID AB-INITIO. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, HE R ELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISIONS AND MORE PARTICULARLY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I KAPIL COREPACKS PRIVATE LTD AND OTHERS V. HARBANS LAL (2010) 8 SCC 452 II CIT V. DHARAM PAL PREM CHAND LTD (2007) 295 ITR 105 (DELHI) III PEBAM NINGOL MIKOI DEVI V. STATE OF MANIPUR OTH ERS (2010) 9 SCC 618 IV SHIPRA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER V. A.C.I.T. (2009) 319 ITR 221 (DELHI) 1261 & OTHERS/CHANDI/2010 5 V CIT V. SHREE RAJASTHAN SYNTEX LTD (2009) 313 ITR 231 (RAJ) VI CIT V. SHIV RATAN SONI (2008) 8 DTR (RAJ) 17 VI CIT V. SMT. PARAMJIT KAUR (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P & H ) VIII SARTHAK SECURITIES C (P) LTD V ITO (2010) 47 D TR (DELHI) 201 11. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSE D BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). 12. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE APPELL ATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE PARTIES INCL UDING ALL THE AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO BY THEM. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139 WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND NOT SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. TH E IMPUGNED NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN SIX YEARS FR OM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE VALIDITY OF IMPUGNED N OTICE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 AND NOT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISO TO SEC 147. IN ORDER TO VALIDLY INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS U NDER THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147, THE AO MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO SATISFY A NY OTHER CONDITION. IF THE AO FOR WHATEVER REASON HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME H AS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON HIM TO INVOKE THE MAIN PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 147. 13. AS HELD IN SEVERAL JUDGMENTS, NOTABLY, ACIT V. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD., 291 ITR 500 (SC) REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED C IT(A), THE EXPRESSION REASON TO BELIEVE IN SECTION 147 WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFI CATION. IF THE AO HAS CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO KNOW OR SUPPOSE THAT INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEV E THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HELD IN THE SAID JUDGMENT THAT AT THE STAGE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE, THE ONLY QUESTION TO BE C ONSIDERED IS WHETHER THERE WAS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON WHICH A REASONABLE PERSON COUL D HAVE FORMED THE REQUISITE BELIEF CONTEMPLATED BY THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. 14. TURNING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER APPEAL, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS INDEED RECEIVED REFERENCE FROM THE DGIT(INV.) THROUGH OFFI CIAL CHANNELS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. IT CANNO T THEREFORE BE SAID THAT THE AO HAD NO MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION TO FORM THE REQUI SITE BELIEF. IT CAN NEITHER BE SAID NOR IS THERE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE ME TO SAY THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION) THROUGH O FFICIAL CHANNELS WAS VAGUE OR IRRELEVANT. THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM HIM WAS NOT ONLY RELEVANT BUT ALSO SPECIFIC AND DEFINITE. THERE WAS THUS A LIVE L INK BETWEEN THE MATERIAL IN THE 1261 & OTHERS/CHANDI/2010 6 POSSESSION OF THE AO AND THE FORMATION OF HIS BELIE F IN TERMS OF THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. WHAT WAS REQUIRED AT THE STAGE OF FORM ATION OF BELIEF WAS PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION ON THE PART OF THE AO THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND NOT THE ESTABLISHED FACT OF ESCAPEME NT OF INCOME. IN THE BACKGROUND OF FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I HOLD THAT THE AO HA S RIGHTLY FORMED A PRIMA FACIE BELIEF IN THE MATTER UNDER APPEAL THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THUS RIGHTLY ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION U/S 147/1 48. 15. THE MERE FACT THAT THE AO HAS SIMPLY REFERRED T O THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD FOR FORMATION OF THE BELIEF IN THE REASONS R ECORDED BY HIM INSTEAD OF REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO THE LETTER RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION), WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE VALIDITY OF INITIAT ION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DID NOT HAVE THE LETTER OF DGIT(INV.) IN HIS POSSESSION AT THE TIME OF FORMATI ON OF BELIEF. SECONDLY, THE FORMATION OF BELIEF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE LETTER RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE DG IT(INV.) CANNOT BE SAID TO BE BASED ON BORROWED SATISFACTION; RATHER, IT IS A CAS E WHERE THE AO HAS FORMED THE REQUISITE BELIEF ON THE BASIS OF DEFINITE, RELIABLE AND RELEVANT INFORMATION RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL (INVESTIGATION) THROU GH OFFICIAL CHANNELS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE VITIATED, AS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E, BY NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR SIMILAR REAS ONS, IT ALSO CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACTED ON BORROWED SATISFACTIO N. IT IS, THEREFORE, NEITHER THE CASE OF NON APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO NO R HIS ACTING UNDER THE BORROWED SATISFACTION OF SOMEONE ELSE. BOTH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 16. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECE IVED A SUM OF RS. 2.50 LAKHS THROUGH ACCOMMODATION ENTRY WHICH IS DULY DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS, THEREFORE, FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN NOT ONLY THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED SUM BUT ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE ENTIRE TRANSACT ION. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF A SUM OF MONEY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON HIM. IF HE DISPUTES LIABILITY FOR TA X, IT IS FOR HIM TO SHOW EITHER THAT THE RECEIPT WAS NOT HIS INCOME OR THAT IF IT WAS, IT WA S EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I-T ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH P ROOF, THE AO IS ENTITLED TO TREAT IT AS TAXABLE RECEIPT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS THAT LAY UPON IT. HE HAS NEITHER ESTABLISHED THE CR EDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR NOR THE NATURE AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. HE H AS NOT PRODUCED THE CREDITOR FOR 1261 & OTHERS/CHANDI/2010 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION. HE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO DO S O FIRSTLY BEFORE THE AO AND THEREAFTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO DO SO. IN FACT, NO ARGUMENT WAS ADDRESSED BEFORE THE CIT(A). NO ARGUMENT IN THIS BE HALF HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ALSO. THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH T HE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLI SH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION UNDER WHICH THE ENTRY HAS BEEN OBTAINED ARE, IN MY VIEW, SUFFICIENT NOT ONLY FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 BUT ALSO ORDER FOR MAKING AND SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 17. THE PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM THE AUTHORITIES RE FERRED TO BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED. THEY HO WEVER DO NOT APPLY ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 18. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE APPEAL FILED BY J ASBIR SINGH, HUF IS DISMISSED. 19. AS SUBMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS ALSO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE OTHER APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL. FOR SIMILAR REASONS AS GIVEN ABOVE, ALL OTHER APPEALS A RE ALSO DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH JANUARY 2011 SD/- (D K SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHANDIGARH, THE 12 TH JANUARY 2011 SURESH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT, S/SHRI JASBIR SINGH, GAUTAM KUMAR , INDERPAL SINGH, PRITPAL SINGH, RAMINDER SINGH 2. THE RESPONDENT, I.T.O. WARD 3, PATIALA 3. THE CIT, PATIALA 4. THE CIT(A), PATIALA 5. THE LD. D.R, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH