SMT. RAJNI GOYAL alias RAJNI JAIN, BHARATPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BHARATPUR

ITA 1337/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7109 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C GUPTA JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Competent authority; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 205; 201; 274; 139(1); 13; 147; 69; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH VC A, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O A JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. SMT. RAJNI GOYAL ALIAS RAJNI JAIN W/O SHRI RAJIV JAIN C/O M/S. NEHA SAREE CENTRE, NEAR LAXMAN MANDIR, DEEG, DISTT. BHARATPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, BHARATPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AMEPG 2045 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C. GUPTA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 01.07.2020. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/08/2020. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 OF LD. CIT (A), ALWAR FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE L EARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING :- 1. THE GROUND OF APPEAL THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN REOPE NING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. 2. THE GROUND OF APPEAL THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN NOT D ECIDING OBJECTIONS RAISED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147. 3. THE GROUND OF APPEAL THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN MAKIN G ADDITION OF RS. 4,00,000/- U/S 69. THE APPELLANT RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO AMEND, ADD, ALT ER, CHANGE OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL, EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL IS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDE O CONFERENCE DUE TO PREVAILING CONDITION OF COVID 19 PANDEMIC. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AO ISSUED NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IT ACT ON 30 TH MARCH, 2016 ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIV ED BY THE ITO WARD-2, BHARATPUR THAT DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERAT ION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE IT ACT IN CASE OF RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, RAJENDRA KUM AR BARDIA, MADAN MOHAN GUPTA AND OTHER GROUPS IT WAS FOUND THAT SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA HAD DEVELOPED A REVENUE RESIDENCY SCHEME AT JAISINGPURA, BHANKROTA, TEHSIL SANGANER, JAIPUR FOR THE MEMBERS OF RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEVA PARISHAD OF JAIPUR IN WHICH 205 PLOTS OF VARIOUS SIZES WERE ALLOTTED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE R AJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEVA PARISHAD AGAINST PAYMENT WHICH INCLUDES ON MONEY OF RS. 2,00 0/- PER SQ. YARD. THE ASSESSEE BEING THE MEMBER OF THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDA R SEVA PARISHAD, WAS ALLOTTED A PLOT IN THE REVENUE RESIDENCY SCHEME AND STATED TO HAVE PAID A SUM OF RS. 4,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY AGAINST THE PLOT BEARING NO. 167 MEASURING 200 3 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. SQ. YARDS. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 19 TH MAY, 2016 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,53,460/- . THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,00,000/- ON AC COUNT OF ON MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ALLOTMENT OF THE PLOT @ RS. 20 00/- PER SQ. YARD. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND ALSO CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING AND REJECTED THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DCIT (HQRS.) AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MIND TO FORM THE BELIEF BY THE AO BUT HE HAS ACTED ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO WARD-2, BHARATPUR AND THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE JURISDIC TION OF ITO WARD-3, BHARATPUR. THUS THE ITO WARD-2 BHARATPUR WAS HAVING NO JURISDI CTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AND THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY THE ITO WARD -2 BHARATPUR WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING IS NOT VALID AS THE ITO WARD-2, BHARATPUR WAS NOT HAVING JURISDICTI ON TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IT ACT AND FURTHER THE REOPENING IS BASE D ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ND TV LTD VS. DCIT, 116 TAXMANN.COM 151 (SC). THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED TH AT SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA HAD NOT MADE ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND IS STRANGER TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. THEREFORE, HIS STATEMENT CANNOT BE A BASIS OR CONST ITUTE A TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT. HE HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS ON THE POINT THAT THE REASONS REC ORDED BY THE AO SHALL HAVE A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE INFORMATION AND BELIEF THAT I NITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THUS THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSME NT IS NOT VALID WHEN THE SAME IS ON THE BASIS OF DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE SUPERIORS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF BELIEF OF THE AO. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THERE IS SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND FACTS DETECTED DURING THE SEARCH AN D SEIZURE ACTION IN CASE OF MADAN MOHAN GUPTA AND OTHERS WHEREIN A DIARY WAS FO UND CONTAINING THE ENTRIES OF ALLOTMENT OF 205 PLOTS TO THE MEMBERS OF RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEVA PARISHAD ONE OF WHOM IS THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE PAYMENT, WHICH IS BIFURCATED INTO TWO PARTS ONE IS PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE AND ANOTHER IS ON MONEY P AYMENT @ RS. 2000/- PER SQ. YARDS. THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI MADAN M OHAN GUPTA HAS EXPLAINED ALL THE DETAILS RECORDED IN THE DIARY AND CLEARLY BROUG HT OUT THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE ALLOTMENT OF PLOT IN THE REVENUE RESIDENCY SCHEME @ RS. 3,150/- PER SQ. YARD OUT OF WHICH ON MONEY WAS RECE IVED BY HIM @ RS. 2000/- PER SQ. YARD AND THE BALANCE WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQU E AND SHOWN IN THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY HIM. THE LD. D/R HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA HAS DEVELOPED THE REVENUE RESIDENCY SCH EME AND HE HAS ALLOTTED THE PLOTS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEV A PARISHAD BY ISSUING THE RECEIPTS AS WELL AS ALLOTMENT LETTERS ON BEHALF OF RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEVA PARISHAD. THUS HE IS THE KEY PERSON WHO HAS DEVELOPED THE REV ENUE RESIDENCY SCHEME, 5 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. CARVED OUT THE PLOTS. HE HAS ALSO ACTED AS A PERSO N ON BEHALF OF THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEVA PARISHAD TO ISSUE THE PLOTS TO THE M EMBERS AND ALSO RECEIVE THE PAYMENTS. THE PAYMENT WAS DIRECTLY RECEIVED BY HIM FROM EACH MEMBER AND NOT FROM THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEVA PARISHAD. ONLY A FTER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REVENUE RESIDENCY SCHEME AND ALLOTMENT OF THE PLOTS TO THE MEMBERS, THE SOCIETY WAS FORMED BY THE ALLOTTEES. THUS THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE FACTS DETECTED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION AND W ERE NARRATED IN THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO ARE NOT IN DISPUTE TO THE EXTENT OF ALLOTMENT OF THE PLOT TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE PAYMENT, THE SEIZED MATERIAL C ONTAINING THE LIST OF ALL THE ALLOTTEES AND PAYMENT AGAINST EACH NAME WHICH INCLU DES THE ON MONEY AS WELL AS THE PAYMENT ON RECORD, THEN THE SAID DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA CONSTITUTED A T ANGLE MATERIAL TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED AS SESSMENT. AT THE STAGE OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 WHAT IS REQUIRED TO FORM THE PRIMA FACIE BELIEF BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4.1. AS REGARDS THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT ON RECEIPT OF THE INFORMATION FROM PCIT ALWAR, THE ITO WARD-2, BHARATPUR WAS HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE ISSUED T HE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IT ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME AND THE PAN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ITO, THEREFORE, HE HAS RIGHTLY ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. ONLY AFTER THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED PERSON AND, T HEREFORE, THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED 6 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. TO THE ITO WARD-3, BHARTPUR UNDER WHOSE JURISDICTIO N SALARIED ASSESSEES ARE ASSESSED. THUS THERE IS NO LACK OF JURISDICTION AS FAR AS THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IS CONCERNED BUT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OF SALARIED PERSON THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO WARD-3, BHARATPUR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION OF JURISDICTION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EVE N THE JURISDICTION OF THE ITO WARD-3, BHARATPUR IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE W HO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) AND THE AO HAS INITIATED THE P ROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 WHEN THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING ON MONEY PA YMENT OF RS. 4,00,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ALLOTMENT OF PLOT IN REVENUE R ESIDENCY SCHEME DEVELOPED BY SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA AS REVEALED BY THE SEIZED MA TERIAL FOUND FROM HIS POSSESSION CONTAINING THE ENTRIES OF ALL 205 ALLOTT EES OF THE PLOTS. THE SAID INFORMATION FURTHER MANIFEST THAT THE PLOTS WERE A LLOTTED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEVA PARISHAD @ RS. 3150/- PER SQ. YARD OUT OF WHICH RS. 2000/- PER SQ. YARD WAS PAID BY EACH MEMBER AS ON M ONEY AND THE REST OF THE AMOUNT IS SHOWN IN THE RECORD. ALL THESE ENTRIES R ECORDED IN THE DIARY BY SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA WERE EXPLAINED BY HIM IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4). THEREFORE, THE SAID SEIZED MATERIAL ALONG WITH STAT EMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA CONSTITUTES A TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE TH AT SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA HAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED EACH AND EVERY DETAIL AND CHAIN O F EVENTS IN HIS STATEMENT 7 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY AND ISSUANCE OF T HE RECEIPTS AS WELL AS ALLOTMENT LETTERS BY HIM. THUS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT DISCLOSED EVEN THE PAYMENT MADE BY HER AND SHOWN IN THE RECEIPT, THEN THE SAID SEIZED MATERIAL DISCLOSING THE ON MONEY PAYMENT AND GIVING ALL THE DETAILS OF RATE AGAINST WHICH THE PLOTS WERE ALLOTTED BY BIFURCATION OF THE ON MONEY PAYMENT AS WELL AS PAYMENT SHOWN IN THE RECORD, PRIMA FACIE LEAD TO THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDE D THIS ISSUE IN PARA 4.3 AND 4.4 AS UNDER :- 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE FUNCTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO ADMINISTER THE STATUTE WITH SOLICITUD E FOR THE PUBLIC EXCHEQUER WITH AN IN-BUILT IDEA OF FAIRNESS TO TAXP AYER (ASST. CIT V. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P.) LTD. 291 ITR 500 (SC) IN DETERMINING WHETHER COMMENCEMENT OF REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS IS VALID, THE COURT HAS ONLY TO SEE WHETHER THERE I S PRIMA FACIE SOME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OPENE D THE CASE. THE SUFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNESS OF THE MATERIAL IS N OT A THING TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS STAGE AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. V. ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC ), GREAT ARTS (P.) LTD. V. ITO 257 ITR 639 (DELHI). THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CHALLENGE SUFFICIENCY OF BELIEF-ITO V. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS 103 ITR 437 (SC). 4.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS. IN THIS REGARD, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE MOOT QUESTION WITH REGAR D TO VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 148 OF THE ACT ARE AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER THE INFORMATION/EVIDENCES IN POSSESSION OF THE A.O ARE CREDIBLE ENOUGH? 2. WHETHER THE A.O HAS APPLIED HIS INDEPENDENT MIND ON THE EVIDENCES IN HIS POSSESSION OR NOT? 3. WHETHER THE A.O HAS FOLLOWED THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN RE-OPENING OF THE CASE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT? 8 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. 1. WHETHER THE INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE INVE STIGATION WING IS CREDIBLE ENOUGH? NOW, LET US EXAMINE Q.NO.1 ON FACTUAL AND LEGAL BAS IS. FACTUAL POSITION; THE A.O HAS IN ITS POSSESSION EVIDENCES THAT POINTE D TOWARDS THE FACT THAT COMMISSION INCOME AS WELL AS HUGE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVING BANKS ACCOUNTS WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR RETURN O F INCOME. THEREFORE, THE A.O HAS SOME EVIDENCES IN HIS POSSESSION POINTI NG TOWARDS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS ACTED UND ER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS HAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE AO HAS INDEED GONE INTO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE INFORMA TION AND EVIDENCES BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. LEGAL POSITION: THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147(1). THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. THE EXPRESSION 'RE ASON', AS THE SUPREME COURT IN ASSISTANT CIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI S TOCK BROKER PVT. LTD.2 HAS HELD, MEANS A CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO KNOW OR SUPPOSE THA T INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEV E THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION CANNOT BE READ TO MEAN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER S HOULD HAVE FINALLY ASCERTAINED THE FACT BY LEGAL EVIDENCE OR CONCLUSIO N. AT THAT STAGE WHAT IS REQUIRED IS 'REASON TO BELIEVE' AND NOT THE ESTA BLISHMENT OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. WHETHER THE MATERIALS WOULD C ONCLUSIVELY PROVE AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS NOT THE CONCERN AT THAT STAGE. 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ITA NO. 342 OF 2011 RESERVED O N: DECEMBER 12, 2011 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 15, 2012. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX. APPELLANT THROUGH : MR. DEEPAK CHOPRA , ADVOCATE VERSUS NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD.. RESPO NDENT THROUGH MR. C.S. AGGARWAL, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. PR AKASH KUMAR AND MR. ARTA TRANA PANDA, ADVOCATES. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR, J. R ELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS AS UNDER: 9 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. THIS ESTABLISHES THE LINK BETWEEN THE MATERIAL WHIC H WAS PRESENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BOTH AT THE TIME WHEN REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WERE RECORDED AND WHEN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE MADE. 3. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CASE:- WRIT TAX NO.- 83 OF 2014 PETITIONER:- M/S PANKAJ HOSPITAL LTD. RESPONDENT:- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTH ER A NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11 MARCH 201 3 UNDER SECTION 148 AND IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DISCLOSURE OF REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED THE REASONS ON THE BASIS O F WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED. THE REASONS P OSTULATE THAT INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ADDITIONAL D IRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) BY THE LETTER DATED 6/8 APRIL 2009 THROUGH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27 JANUARY 2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE 4, AGRA THAT A SEARCH WAS CON DUCTED ON THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, TARUN GOYAL ON 15 SEPTEMBER 2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THAT HE HAD CREATED AS MAN Y AS 90 BOGUS PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES AND FIRMS FOR PROVI DING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE BENEFICIARIES. THE DIR ECTORS OF THESE COMPANIES WERE HIS EMPLOYEES WHO HAD WORKED IN HIS OFFICE AS PEONS AND RECEPTIONISTS. A NUMBER OF BANK ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED IN THE NAME OF THESE COMPANIES AND ITS EMPLOYEES IN WHICH HUGE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE. CHEQUES WERE THEN ISSUED T O CERTAIN BENEFICIARIES, DISGUISING THE TRANSACTIONS AS GENUI NE. THE ADIT (INVESTIGATION) PREPARED A LIST OF BENEFICIARIES OF SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 -05 UPTO 2009-10. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE REASONS WHICH HAVE BE EN RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148 STATE THAT THE PETITIONER-M/S. PA NKAJ HOSPITAL LTD. IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES WHICH HAD TAKEN TH E BENEFIT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 200 5-06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 FROM FOUR BOGUS COMP ANIES CREATED BY TARUN GOYAL IN LIEU OF CASH DEPOSITS IN EQUAL AMOUNTS PLUS PREMIUM THEREON. THE TOTAL AMOUNT INVOLVED IS RS.2,21,50,000/-. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS S OUGHT TO BE REOPENED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER HAD ARRA NGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 2.21 CRORES FROM 10 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. THE AFORESAID FOUR BOGUS COMPANIES CREATED BY THE C HARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN LIEU OF CASH DEPOSITS OF EQUAL AMOUNT S PLUS PREMIUMS WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. ON THIS BASIS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGH T TO BE REOPENED AS THERE WAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE IN COME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN PURSUANCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN G .K.N. DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, THE OBJECTION WHICH WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE ORDER DATED 24 SEPTEMBER, 2013. THE ASSESSEE HAS CH ALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. . THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147(1). THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. THE EXPRESSION 'REASON', AS THE SUPREME COURT IN ASSISTANT CIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKER PVT. LTD.2 HAS HELD, MEANS A CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO K NOW OR SUPPOSE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION CANNOT BE READ T O MEAN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE FINALLY ASCERTAIN ED THE FACT BY LEGAL EVIDENCE OR CONCLUSION. AT THAT STAGE WHAT IS REQUIRED IS 'REASON TO BELIEVE' AND NOT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ES CAPEMENT OF INCOME. WHETHER THE MATERIALS WOULD CONCLUSIVELY PR OVE AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS NOT THE CONCERN AT THAT STA GE. NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REQUIRED TH E ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE SHARE APPLIC ANTS, THE AMOUNTS AND THEIR SOURCE, THE MODE IN WHICH PAYMENT WAS MADE AND CONFIRMATORY LETTERS TOGETHER WITH PAN DETAILS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE COURT MUST PROCEED ON THE BA SIS OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE AS,SESSEE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 142(1). THE ASSESSEE HAD INDICATED THE NAMES OF THE COMPANIES, THEIR ADDRESSES, THE APPLICATION MONEY, DATE OF PAYMENT, MODE OF PAY MENT AND PAN DETAILS. BUT IT IS ALSO TRITE LAW THAT FOR SUCH CAS ES THREE IMPORTANT ASPECTS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, NAMELY (I) THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS; (II) THE CREDIT WORT HINESS OF THE APPLICANTS; AND (III) THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTION. EX-FACIE, THE 11 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 2 DECEMBER 2008 (ANNEXURE 5) DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BROUGHT HIS MIND TO BEAR ON EITHER OF THESE ASPECTS. IN FACT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REPL Y FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) THAT WO ULD INDICATE A FULL DISCLOSURE OF FACTS IN REGARD TO EITHER THE CR EDIT WORTHINESS OF THE COMPANIES WHICH MADE THE INVESTMENTS OR THE GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTION. A CLOUD WAS CAST ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ONCE A SEARCH TOOK PLACE AT THE PREMISES OF THE CHA RTERED ACCOUNTANT WHO, ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT HAS STATED THAT HE HAD SET UP 90 BOGUS COMPANIES, ALL WITHIN HIS CONTROL AND IN WHIC H THE DIRECTORS WERE HIS OWN EMPLOYEES ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROV IDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN FAVOUR OF VARIOUS BENEFICI ARIES. AMONG THE BENEFICIARIES IS THE PETITIONER TO WHOM A PAYMENT OF RS.2.21 CRORES WAS MADE THROUGH THE FOUR COMPANIES WHICH CREATED A CONDUIT. WHETHER IT IS ACTUALLY SO, IS A MATTER OF FACT WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDI NGS AFTER THE ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED. AT THIS STAGE, THE ONLY ISS UE BEFORE THE COURT IS TO WHETHER THERE WAS REASON TO BELIEVE THA T ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. FROM THE REPLY WHICH WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT DOES NOT EMERGE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE C OMPANIES WHICH HAD OSTENSIBLY INVESTED THE AMOUNT OR IN REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. HENCE, THOUGH THE R EOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF FOUR YEARS BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE CONDITION STIPULATED IN THE FIRST PROVISO. TO SECTION 147 WAS DULY FULFILLED. WE, HOWEVER, CLARIFY THAT THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE ON LY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE RE OPENING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS VALID OR OTHERWISE. UNDOU BTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE DETERMINATION SINCE THESE ARE A LL MATTERS OF FACT WHICH ARE TO BE DECIDED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 R EAD WITH SECTION 147. TAKING AN OVER VIEW OF THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, INFO RMATION AND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE A.O, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT TH E INFORMATION/ EVIDENCES IN THE POSSESSION OF THE A.O WAS CREDIBLE ENOUGH. AS IS PROPOUNDED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSISTA NT CIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKER PVT. LTD AND JURISDICTIONAL DE LHI HIGH COURT 12 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD AS CITED ABOVE, T HE LEGAL POSITION IS THAT AT THE STAGE OF ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 THE MERITS OF THE MATTER ARE NOT RELEVANT AND THE A SSESSING OFFICER AT THAT STAGE IS REQUIRED TO FORM ONLY A PRIMA FACIE B ELIEF OR OPINION THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PRIMA-FACIE INFORMATION/EVIDENCES IN POSS ESSION OF THE A.O IS CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO FORM THE REASON TO BE LIEVE. THEREFORE, THE A.O HAS RIGHTLY ISSUED THE NOTICE U NDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 2. WHETHER THE A.O HAS APPLIED HIS INDEPENDENT MIND ON THE EVIDENCES IN HIS POSSESSION OR NOT? THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE A.O BEFORE ISSUING NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE A.O HAS INDEED GONE INTO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE INFORMATION AND EVID ENCES BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 3. WHETHER THE A.O HAS FOLLOWED THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN RE- OPENING OF THE CASE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT? THE A.O AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTUAL MATRI X OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AND EVIDENCES IN HIS POSSESSIO N AND HE HAS ISSUED & SERVED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AFTER TAKING DUE APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE PROCEDURAL AS PECT OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE A.O HAS FOLLOWED DUE PROCESS OF LAW. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGONE, THE APPELLANT'S GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE R EGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. AS REGARDS THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO WHO ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ITO WARD -2 BHARATPUR RECEIVED THE INFORMATION AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSE E FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME 13 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. REVEALING HER STATUS AS SALARIED PERSON, THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ITO WARD-3, BHARATPUR WHO WAS HAVING JURISDICTI ON OVER THE SALARIED ASSESSEES. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 BY ITO WARD-2, BHARATPUR. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING NON DISPOSAL OF THE OBJEC TION AGAINST THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. 6. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE OBJECTIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2016. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THE OBJECTIONS BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT OR DER, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS NOT VALID FOR WANT OF DECIDING THE OBJ ECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY A SEPARATE SPEAKING ORDER. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE LETTER DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2016 IS NOT THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REPLY TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 SEEKING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL DISCLOSING THE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY OF RS. 4,00,000/ - BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION AGAINST T HE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IT ACT. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE LETTER DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2016 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO DATED 30.09.2016. THE C ONTENTS OF THE LETTER DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2016 ARE AS UNDER :- 14 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS IS ONLY A REPLY TO NOTIC E ISSUED BY THE AO DATED 30.09.2016 AND NOT THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE NOTICE ISSUED UN DER SECTION 148 DATED 30.03.2016. EVEN OTHERWISE, THIS LETTER WAS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AT THE FAG END OF 15 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FINALLY PASSED ON 3 RD NOVEMBER, 2016. THEREFORE, THIS LETTER CANNOT BE CO NSIDERED AS AN OBJECTION AGAINST THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. HEN CE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF DISPOSAL OF THE SAME BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO MERIT OR SUBSTANCE IN GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,00, 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,00,000/- ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALL Y PAID ANY ON MONEY AS ALLEGED BY THE AO. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF 3 RD PARTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT G IVEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINE THE SAME. HE HAS FURT HER CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RELATION OR NEXUS WITH SHRI MADAN M OHAN GUPTA BUT THE ALLOTMENT WAS MADE BY THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEVA PARISHAD, THEN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF SUCH ADDIT ION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF JODH PUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.01.2019 IN CASE OF SHRI MEHTAB SINGH UJJAWAL VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 271/JODH/2018. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE SEIZED MATERIAL AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ESTABLIS HED THE FACT THAT THE MEMBERS OF RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEVA PARISHAD HAVE PAID ON M ONEY AGAINST THE ALLOTMENT OF THE PLOT IN THE REVENUE RESIDENCY SCHEME WHICH WAS DEVELOPED AND SOLD BY SHRI 16 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. MADAN MOHAN GUPTA. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE DIARY CONTAINING THE ENTRIES OF CONSIDERATION BY EACH ALLOTTEE OF 205 PLOTS GIVE S THE DETAILS ABOUT THE RATE PER SQ. YARD AS WELL AS ON MONEY PAYMENT OF RS. 2000/- PER SQ. YARD. THIS RATE WAS MENTIONED AGAINST EACH AND EVERY PLOT NUMBER AND AL LOTTEE. THE SAID DIARY ALSO CONTAINS THE PAYMENT WHICH WAS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE REFORE, BOTH COMPONENTS OF THE PAYMENT WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE SAID DIARY. WHEN THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY CONTAIN BOTH PAYMENTS WHICH ARE IN RECORD AS WELL AS ON MON EY, THEN PART OF THE EVIDENCES CANNOT BE DENIED. THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS EITHER FU LLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF INADMISSIBLE. EXCEPT THE ON MONEY ENTRY IN THE DIA RY AGAINST EACH NAME, ALL OTHER FACTS RECORDED ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE SEIZED MATERIAL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN PART BUT THE WHOLE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL ARE FACTUALLY CORRECT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO HAS REPRODUCED THE STATEMENTS OF SHR I MADAN MOHAN GUPTA WHICH WERE RECORDED ON 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 AND 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT AFTER THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND RECORDING OF STATE MENT UNDER SECTION 132(4), THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA WAS ALSO RECORD ED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2016. IN HIS STATEMENT SHRI MAD AN MOHAN GUPTA AGAIN REAFFIRMED THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIA L AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT GIVEN AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT HAS RECORDED HIS FINDING AS UNDER :- 17 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT SMT. RAJNI GOYAL ALIAS RAJNI JAIN W/O SHRI RAJIV JAIN IN HAS PURCHASED A PLOT BEARING NO. 167 MEASURING 200 SQ YARDS @ RS. 3150/- PER SQ YARD FRO M SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA IN THE REVENUE RESIDENCY SCHEME, AT JAISINGPURA, BHANKROTA, TEHSIL SANGANER, JAIPUR THR OUGH THE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL SECRETARY OF RAJASTHAN TEHSIL DAR SEWA PARISAD OF JAIPUR. ON ASKING THE PAYMENT OF ON-MONE Y, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED SILENT WHICH MEANS SHE HAD PAID O N-MONEY AS PER STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA. IT I S WELL SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT ONCE A TRANSACTION STANDS ACCE PTED IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER, THE SAME TOO ALSO HAS TO BE AC CEPTED IN THE HANDS OF BUYER. IN VIEW OF ABOVE NARRATED FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT SHE HAD PAID OVER AND ABOVE FROM THE RECORDED VALUE OF PLOT TO THE SELLER. AS PER DETAILS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, SHE HAD MADE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 665600/- IN THE PLOT IN QUESTION INCLUDING BOUNDARY WALL EXPENSES OF RS. 35,600/-. OUT OF THIS TOTAL INVESTMENT, SHE HAD ALREADY MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 2,3 5,600/- AS PER SEIZED DIARY. THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION AB OUT THE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF PLOT SITUATED I N THE REVENUE RESIDENCY SCHEME, AT JAISINGPURA, BLIANKROTA, TEHSI L SANGANER, JAIPUR, THEREFORE THE ON MONEY PAYMENT OF RS. 4 LAK HS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, AN ADDITION OF RS. 4 LA KHS IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED HIS INCOME BY NOT DISCLOSING ACTUAL IN VESTMENT IN PURCHASING THE PLOT NO. 167 IN THE REVENUE RESIDENC Y COLONY SITUATED AT BHANKROTA, TEHSIL SANGANER, JAIPUR WHIC H ESTABLISHED THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 ARE BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY . FROM THESE FINDINGS, THE FACT REGARDING PURCHASE OF PLOT BEARING NO. 167 MEASURING 200 SQ. YARDS AGAINST THE PAYMENT ALREADY MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE OF RS. 2,35,600/- ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PERTINENT T O NOTE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 2,35,600/- ALONG WITH THE ON MONEY PAYMENT OF RS. 4 ,00,000/- IS DULY RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL BEING A DIARY MAINTAINED BY SHR I MADAN MOHAN GUPTA. THE 18 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE DIARY ARE NOT IN RESPECT OF AN ISOLATED CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THESE ENTRIES ARE IN RESPECT OF ALL 205 PLOTS I N THE REVENUE RESIDENCY SCHEME DEVELOPED BY SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA AND SOLD TO THE MEMBERS OF RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEVA PARISHAD. WHEN THE AREA OF THE PLOT , ALLOTTEES OF THE PLOT, THE PAYMENTS MADE IN RECORD ARE NOT IN DISPUTE AS RECOR DED IN THE DIARY, THEN THE ON MONEY PAYMENT WHICH IS ALSO RECORDED AGAINST EACH A ND EVERY PLOT CANNOT BE DISPUTED AS THESE ENTRIES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PART LY CORRECT AND PARTLY WRONG. WE FIND SUBSTANCE AND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE L D. D/R THAT IF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT REVEALING THE FACTS WHICH ARE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSES SEE, THEN THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT IS AN ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND A DOCUMENT CANNOT BE HEL D TO BE PARTLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND PARTLY INADMISSIBLE. FURTHER, TO CONT ROVERT THE FACTS AS FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED EVEN A SINGLE DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT THOSE FACTS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND STATED IN THE S TATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T EVEN FILED THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT AGAINST THE PAYMENT MADE FOR ALLOTMENT OF THE PLOT AS WELL AS THE ALLOTMENT LETTER ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEVA PA RISHAD TO SHOW THAT THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE DIARY AND STATED IN THE STATEMENT O F SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ARE NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF H EARING, THE BENCH POINTED OUT TO THE LD. A/R THAT WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RECEIPT ISSUED AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT ALONG WITH ALLOTMENT LETTER. THE LD. A/R HA S GIVEN AN EVASIVE REPLY THAT THOSE WERE NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE SOCIETY . THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL, THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY T HE AO WHICH WERE DULY SUPPORTED 19 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. AND ESTABLISHED BY THE SEIZED MATERIAL AS WELL AS T HE FACTS EXPLAINED BY SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA IN HIS STATEMENT CANNOT BE DISPUTED. A S REGARDS THE DECISION OF JODHPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MEHTAB SINGH UJJAL VS. ITO (SUPRA), WE NOTE THAT IN THE SAID CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHER EAS IN THE CASE IN HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA. A CCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD . CIT (A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,00,000/-. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/08/ 2020. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 21/08/2020. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 3, BHARTPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 20 ITA NO. 1337/JP/2018 SMT. RAJNI GOYAL, DEEG.