Mrs. Gurinder Kaur, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 141/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5069 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES (A) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA-141/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 MRS. GURINDER KAUR, V ITO, WARD 4(4), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN : ABGPK-9548-Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K.SAINI ORDER PER G.S.PANNU, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 15.01.2009 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02. THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES T O A SUM OF RS.3,50,000/- IN RESPECT OF LOAN RAISED FROM ONE SH RI RAKESH BAJAJ, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2. IN BRIEF, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF RS.3,50,000/- FROM SHRI RAKESH B AJAJ VIDE CHEQUE NO.5,75,209/- DATED 27.09.2000 DRAWN ON STAT E BANK OF INDIA, SECTOR 17-B, CHANDIGARH. THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED THAT THE LOAN WAS INTEREST FREE AND RETURNABLE IN 20 YEARS A ND IN SUPPORT, A COPY OF LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 27.09.2000 WAS FILED . IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER 2 RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, CONTENTS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CONFRONTED TO T HE ASSESSEE A COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI RAKESH BAJAJ TENDERED BEF ORE THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)-II, CHANDI GARH ON 28.10.2003. A PORTION OF THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN EX TRACTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN TERM S OF THE SAID STATEMENT, IT EMERGED THAT AS PER SHRI RAKESH BAJAJ , HIS BANK ACCOUNTS WERE USED TO GIVE PAY ORDERS/BANK DRAFTS T O DIFFERENT PERSONS AND IN LIEU THEREOF, CASH WAS RECEIVED. TH E SAID PERSON ALSO DEPOSED THAT DOCUMENTS SUCH AS GIFT DEED, AFFI DAVITS, LOAN CONFIRMATIONS ETC. WERE ALSO ISSUED TO THE SAID PER SONS. ON BEING ASKED AS TO WHETHER HE HAD GIVEN ANY LOAN OR GIFT F ROM HIS NRE BANK ACCOUNT, THE SAID PERSON STATED THAT EXCEPT LO ANS MADE TO SHRI RANJAN CHAWLA AND REENA CHAWLA, NO OTHER LOANS OR GIFTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO ANY PERSON FROM HIS NRE ACCOUNTS . ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUI RED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN OF RS .3,50,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAKESH BAJA J FROM HIS NRE ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHANDIGARH. A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN IN QUESTION AND ACCORDINGLY , A SUM OF RS.3,50,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AGAINST WHICH, THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE BURDEN CAST ON THE ASSES SEE STOOD 3 DISCHARGED IN AS MUCH AS THE LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 2 7.09.2000 PROVED THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHR I RAKESH BAJAJ. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHR I RAKESH BAJAJ RECORDED ON 28.10.2003 WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE SAME DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MEN TION THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE SAID STATEMENT CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSES SEE AND ON THE CONTRARY, RELIANCE SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE MATE RIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT I T STANDS ESTABLISHED THAT THE LOAN HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THEREFORE, ITS GENUINE NESS CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR HAS RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY. IN THIS CASE, IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT AFTER THE ASSESSEE W AS CONFRONTED WITH THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAKESH BAJAJ DATED 28.10 .2003, TENDERED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANY MATERIAL OR DOCUMENTARY PROO F TO SUPPORT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. QUITE CLEARLY, PRIOR TO SUCH EVIDENCE, THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED. SO HOWEVER, THE LOAN AGREEME NT DATED 27.09.2000 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO JUST IFY THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION IS AN EVIDENCE OF A PERIOD PRI OR TO DEPOSITION OF SHRI RAKESH BAJAJ BEFORE THE INCOME T AX AUTHORITIES, TENDERED ON 28.10.2003. 6. THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID STATEMEN T HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE OR THAT S HRI RAKESH 4 BAJAJ HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY NAMED THE ASSESSEE, ARE FACTORS WHICH DO NOT TAKE AWAY THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT RECO RDED ON 28.10.2003. THE SAID STATEMENT CLEARLY BRINGS OUT, DEPOSITION OF SHRI RAKESH BAJAJ THAT HE HAD NOT ADVANCED ANY LOAN EXCEPT TO SHRI RANJAN CHAWLA AND REENA CHAWLA OUT OF HIS NRE BANK ACCOUNTS. IT IS FURTHER BROUGHT OUT THAT OUT OF SUC H NRE BANK ACCOUNTS, PAY ORDERS/DRAFTS WERE GIVEN TO DIFFERENT PERSONS IN LIEU OF CASH. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SAID ADVER SE STATEMENT TENDERED BEFORE A STATUTORY AUTHORITY, CLEARLY SHIF TED THE BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRA NSACTION REFLECTED IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 27.09.2000. OSTENSIBLY, SUBSEQUENT TO THE SAID STATEMENT, ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO DIS-APPROVE SUCH ADVERS E EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE BURDEN CAST ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE IMPUGNED CREDIT HAS NOT BE EN DISCHARGED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 7. AS A RESULT THEREOF, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.07.2010. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ( G.S.PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED : 27 TH JULY, 2010. POONAM COPY TO : THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT (A)/ THE CIT/THE DR.