Meenu Jain, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 25(1), New Delhi

ITA 1738/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5949 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 205; 195; 250; 201; 72; 13; 131; 68; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO . 1738 /DE L/ 201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 05 - 06 SMT. MEENU JAIN, 158, RAJDHANI ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI 34 (PAN: AA LPJ5836E ) VS. ITO, WARD : 25 (1), NEW DELHI A N D ITA NO. 173 9 /DEL/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 05 - 06 SMT. SUSHMA JAIN, 158, RAJDHANI ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI 34 (PAN: AA GPJ6675A) VS. ITO, WARD : 25 (1), NEW DELHI A N D ITA NO. 1740 /DEL/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 05 - 06 SMT. DAYA JAIN, 158, RAJDHANI ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI 34 (PAN: ADRPJ4409L) VS. ITO, WARD : 25 (1), NEW DELHI A N D ITA NO. 1741 /DEL/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 05 - 06 SHRI SUDHIR JAIN (HUF), 158, RAJDHANI ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI 34 (PAN: AA LPJ 5836E ) VS. ITO, WARD : 25 (1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT S ) (RESPONDENT S ) ASSESSEE S BY MS. RANO JAIN, ADVOCATE ; & 2 O R D E R THE SE ARE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSES AGAINST T HE RESPECTIVE IMPUGNED ORDER S DATED 22.12.2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 14, NEW DELHI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 . SINCE THE GROUNDS INVOLVED IN THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL AND THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE IS ALSO THE SAME, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, I AM DISPOSING OFF ALL THE 04 APPEALS BY PASSING THIS COMMON ORDER AND REPRODUC E THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUND S RAISED IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS : - 1. THAT O N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW , THE CIT (A PPEALS ) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS U/S. 6 8 OF RS.3,00,000/ - ; 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN THE LAW, THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS U/S 68 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, INTERALIA, COMPRISING OF GIFT DEED; ITR OF DONORS, BAL ANCE SHEET ALONG WITH BANK STATEMENT OF DONORS ARE DULY ON RECORD; 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS U/S 68 EVEN THOUGH THE CIT (APPEALS) UNDER I DENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES HAS DELETED SAID ADDITION IN CASE OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) BEEN ACCEPTED BY REVENUE. MS. MANSI JAIN, C.A.; DEPARTMENT BY SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. D . R. 3 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING , LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ISSUE S INVOLVED IN THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL AND THE SAME CAN BE DISPOSED O F BY PASSING ONE ORDER . F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , S HE ARGUED THE ITA. NO. 1738/DEL/2018 IN THE CASE OF SMT. MEENU JAIN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI. THEREFORE, I AM FIRST DEALING WITH ITA NO. 1738/DEL/2018 (AY 2005 - 06) IN THE CASE OF MEENU JAIN VS. ITO AND THE RESULT THEREOF WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO OTHER 03 APPEALS. 3. SMT. MEE N U JAIN , THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.1,32,15 6/ - ON 20.09.2005. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCESSED THE SAME U/S 143( 1 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT ) AT THE RETURNED INCOME ON 0 8.03.2007. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143( 2 ) OF THE ACT ON 25.09.2006 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (A / R) OF THE ASSESSEE FILED REQUISITE DETAILS. 4. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AMOUNTING TO RS.1 ,36,532/ - COMPRISING PRIMARILY OF INTEREST INCOME. ON EXAMINATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.3,00,000/ - BY WAY OF GIFTS FROM THREE PERSONS SHRI NARESH JAIN, SHRI GOPAL BANSAL AND SHRI UMESH JAIN @ RS.1,00,000/ - EACH ON 19.08.2004, 20.08.2004 AND 20.08.20 04 THROUGH CHEQUES RESPECTIVELY. AFTER EXAMINING THE GIFT DEED OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THESE PERSONS CHOSE TO MAKE A GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE, ON THE SAME DAY, WITHOUT ANY OCCASION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT NONE OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE MADE ANY GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. ON EXAMIN ING THE GIFT DEED SO FURNISHED IT WAS NOTICED THAT ALL THE THREE DONORS HAD DEPOSED THAT GIFTS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THEIR NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION FOR THE AS SESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS 4 OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THE THREE DONORS ARE NEITHER PART OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE OR EVEN A RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN LIGHT OF THIS , THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO FURNISH DETAILS ABOUT THE GIFT TRANSACTIONS AND ALSO FURNISH EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS . I N RESPONSE THERETO, ASSESSEE FURNISH ED THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT REGARDING GIFT DEED, I . T . PARTICULARS AND BANK EXTRACT OF THE DONORS. O N EXAMINATION OF THE SAME THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ALL THE THREE DONORS HAD SHOWN RETURN ED INCOME WHICH WAS SLIGHTLY MORE THAN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE I.E. SHRI NARESH JAIN RS.97,966/ - , SHRI GOPAL BANSAL RS.1,02,000/ - AND S HRI UMESH JAIN RS.1,12,000/ - . 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE DONORS FOR CONFIRMATION OF GIFT TRANSACTION VIDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DATED 15.05.2007, B UT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO DESPITE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED ON 22.05.2006, 25.05.2007 AND 11.06.2007. TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE DONOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DONORS ON 04.06.2007 AND SENT BY REGISTERED POST TO THE THREE DONORS AND THEY WE RE ASKED TO ATTEND ON 1 4 .0 6 .2007. THE SUMMONS ADDRESSED TO SH. NARSEH JAIN WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WITH THE REMARKS NO SUCH ADDRESS. THE SUMMONS TO THE OTHER TWO DONORS NAMELY, SHRI GOPAL BANSAL AND SHRI UMESH JAIN WERE RETURNED UN - SERVED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WITH THE REMARK S LEFT WITHOUT ADDRESS AND NO SUCH PERSON RESPECTIVELY. THIS FACT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED WHY THE NON - SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS ON THE DONORS SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED ADVERSELY. IN RESPONSE TO THE SA ME , AR OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED MORE TIME . B UT THE DONORS WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION OF THE GIFTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED TO THE A UTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GIFT TRANSACTION S APPEARED TO BE BOGUS FOR THE REASON THAT THE DONORS ARE NOT RELAT ED TO THE ASSESSEE , THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AS REFLECTED FROM 5 THEIR ITR S FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FINANCIAL STATUS APPARENT FROM THE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK SUBMITTED , SHOWS LACK OF CAPACITY TO GIFT R S1,00,000/ - EACH AS GIFT AND THERE IS NO APPARENT REASON / PURPOSE / MO TIVE FOR MAKING GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE DONORS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. AO OBSERVED THAT IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS AGAINST THE HUMAN PROBABILIT IES FOR SUCH SUM S OF MONEY TO BE GIFTED TO THE STRANGER S. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ADDED RS.3,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID THREE PERSONS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.4,32,16 0 / - VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, A SSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.12.2007 HAS UPH E LD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORD ER DATED 22.12.2017 , ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. DURING THE HEARING, MRS. RANO JAIN, THE LEARNED A/R OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED ON ONE LEGAL GROUND AS WELL AS ON MERITS ALSO. SHE STATED THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/ - IN EACH CASE U/S 6 8 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT RS.3,00,000/ - DOES NOT REPRESENT GIFT AND ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PROVE THIS GIFT AS BONAFIDE GIFT. SHE STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS INCOME. SHE STATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS N OT HAVING BUSINESS INCOME / RECEIPT / TURNOVER IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR , THEN THE QUESTION OF MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. SHE STATED 6 THAT T HE FINDING OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THIS I SSUE IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE BECAUSE SECTION 68 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS DUTY TO MAKE PROPER EXAMINATION OF RETURN OF INCOME BY GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS SU CH AS THE ASSESSEE NEVER MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SHE ALSO DRAW MY ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT AND STATED THAT THIS PROVISION CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT UNDER OBLIGATI ON TO MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/ - WAS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE STUCK DOWN. IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION SHE FILED A PAPER BOOK IN WHICH SHE HAS FILED VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING THE ORDER PASSED IN VINESH MAHESWARI, RIMA MAHESWARI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6 1 (2)( 3) NEW DELHI, DATED 01.03.2019 IN ITA. NO S . 7210 & 7211 (DEL) OF 201 8 REPORTED IN (201 9 ) 3 TMI 1118 ITAT, DELHI AND IN NITIN AGARWAL (HUF), K AILASH PRASAD AGARWAL (HUF) AND M ANISH AGGARWAL (HUF) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 30(1), NEW DELHI AND INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(2) NEW DELHI REPORTED IN (2019) 1 TMI 651 ITAT, DELHI, THE UNDER - SIGNED IS THE AUTHOR OF THIS ORDER DATED 01.03.2009 . SECONDLY, SHE HAS ALSO CITED ORDER OF THE ITAT, DELHI REPORTED IN (2019) 4 TMI 1020 ITAT, DELHI IN JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 35(1), NEW DELHI. SHE HAS ALSO FILED VARIOUS OTHER CASE LAWS ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WHERE IN THE ASSESSEE IS INDIVIDUAL AND NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE. 8. ON THIS ISSUE THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , RELIED UPON THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES . HE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.05.2019 P ASSED BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI, IN ITA. NOS. 937 AND 938 (DEL) OF 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2004 - 7 05 AND 200 5 - 0 6 IN THE ACSE OF JANAK G OEL VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, NEW DELHI. THE LEARNED DR HAS ALSO FILED ONE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON LEGAL ISSUE AS WELL AS ON MERITS. HE ESPECIALLY DREW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS PARAS 17 TO 20 OF THE AFORESAID TRIBUNAL S ORDER DATED 13.05.2019 AND STATED THAT THE LEGAL ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED AND ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BHAICHAND N. GANDHI REPORTED IN (1983) 141 CTR 63 (BOM) . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 9. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE LEGAL ISSUE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI IN IT A. NOS. 937 AND 938 (DEL) OF 2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 IN THE CASE OF SHRI JANAK GOEL, GURGAON VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 13.05.2019. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEGAL ISSU E RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 17 TO 20 ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER: - 17 . IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND THE ASSESSEE CONTENTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT A, HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO INR 512000/ ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT PROVISIONS O F SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX AT ACT APPLY ONLY WHEN THE AMOUNT IS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ADDITION U/S 68 MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT A, IS INVALID. 18. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT CAPITAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE 8 ADDITION IS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. MAINTAINING ANY B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT STANDS VITIATED AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE DELETED. THE FIRST JUDICIAL PRECEDENT IN THIS CONTROVERSY IS THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN 141 ITR 67, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THAT WHEN MONIES ARE DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT, RELATIONSHIP THAT IS CONSTITUTED BETWEEN TH E BANK AND THE CUSTOMER IS OF CREDITOR AND NOT THE TRUSTEE AND BENEFICIARY. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT AS IF THE BANK PASSBOOK IS MAINTAINED BY THE BANK AS AN AGENT OF THE CUSTOMER, NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE PASSBOOK IS MAINTAINED BY THE BANK UNDER THE INSTRUC TIONS OF THE CUSTOMERS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE BANK PASSBOOK SUPPLIED BY THE BANK TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER INSTRUCTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT CASH CREDIT FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHOWN IN THE ASSESSEE S BANK PASSBOOK ISSUED TO HIM BY THE BANK, BUT NOT SHOWN IN THE CASHBOOK MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR THAT YEAR, DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE DID MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS , CERTAIN SUMS WERE FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WERE NOT FOUND IN THE REGULAR CASHBOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT STATED SO. FURTHER, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THAT CASE IS 1962 6 3. ADMITTEDLY ON THAT DATE DEFINITION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 2 (12A) WAS NOT THERE ON STATUTE, WHICH IS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2001, WITH EFFECT FROM 1/6/2001. FURTHER, THE HONOURABLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN 85 TAXMANN.CO M 306, 250 TAXMAN 362 AND 399 ITR 256 (BOMBAY) IN ARUNKUMAR J MUCHHALA V CIT HAS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WHERE THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN 141 ITR 67 WAS CONSIDERED. THE HONOURABLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT NOTED THAT IN SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA (HUF) VS CIT, 46 TAXMANN.COM 340, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT NOTED THAT WHEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMO UNT IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS JUSTIFIED. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WAS PREFERRE D CHALLENGING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT BEFORE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT HAS DISMISSED THE SAME IN 69 TAXMANN.COM 219 [239 TAXMANN 264]. IN VIEW OF THIS, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT THE AM OUNT IS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH REMAINS UNEXPLAINED THE ADDITION COULD BE CORRECTLY MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. FURTHER LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF THE BOOKS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IT IS APPARENT THAT PASSBOOK IS A DAYBOOK WHICH I S KEPT IN THE RETURN FORM OR AS A PRINTOUT OF DATA STORED IN A FLOPPY. THEREFORE, AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DEFINITION OF THE BOOKS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 2 (12A) OF THE ACT, THE PASS - BOOK CAN ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS BOOKS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THERE IS NO DISTINCTION WHO WRITES IT, BUT IT IS RECORD OF THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE BANK. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ALSO DOES NOT MAKE ANY DISTINCTION ABOUT WHO MAINTAINS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ONL Y REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE BOOKS SHOULD BE OF AN ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD 9 BE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT A, IN CONFIRMING AN A DDITION OF INR 512000/ ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 05 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 20. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 05 IS DISMISSED. 10. I HAVE THOROUGHLY GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ALONG WITH ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.05.2019 REPRODUCED ABOVE. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BHAICHAND N. GANDHI (SUPRA) BY HOLDING THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESS EE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HON BLE HIGH C O URT HAS ALSO HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THE ADDITION OF SUCH AMOUNT IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS JUSTIFIED. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WAS PREFERRED AND CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT BEFORE THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DIS MISSED. THE SAME IS REPORTED IN SHRI SURINDER KUMAR SANPAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI REPORTED IN 69 TAXMAN.COM 219 (239 TAXMAN 264) (SC). 11. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER REFERRED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AUTHORED BY TH E UNDER - SIGNED AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENT IN THE APPEALS IN WHICH THE UNDER - SIGNED PASSED THE ORDER WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE SAI D APPEALS. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT CITED THE DECISION OF HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BHAICHAND N. GANDHI (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 10 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN SHRI SURINDER KUMAR SANPAL VS. ITO (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT OF SAID ORDERS PASSED BY THE UNDER - SIGNED COULD NOT BE GIVEN IN FUTURE TO ANY PARTY. 12. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE AND THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE LEGAL ISSUE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI REPRODUCED ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 13. AS REGARDS TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE GIFT DEEDS BEFORE THE AO WHICH WAS EXAMINED BY HIM AND MADE THE ADDITION IN DI SPUTE BY HOLDING THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR NOT ESPECIALLY VERIFICATION OF THE DONOR WAS NOT ARRANGED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR THROUGH CLEARING CHEQUE RECEIVED ON THE SAME DATE WHEN CHEQUE WAS ISSUED BY HIM IN RESPECT OF DONATION AND LOVE AND AFFECTION BETWEEN THE DONOR AND DONE E NOT FOUND. SHE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO ESTABLISHING CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR BU T THE AO FAILED TO VERIFY THE SAME BY USING THE POWER UNDER SECTION 131 R.W.S. 133(6) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE AO FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS DUTY SO FAR AS CREDITWORTHINESS AND SOURCES OF FUND INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION OF ALL THE GIFTS ARE CONCERNED. SH E FURTHER STATED THAT NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DONOR AND H AS SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE DONOR AND MAKE A SPECIAL REQUEST TO ISSUE SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DONOR TO MERELY FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DONOR MADE A GROUND FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH CREDITWORTHINESS WHEN NUMBER OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES ARE VESTED BY THE STATUTE WITH THE AO FOR THE 11 SAME. SHE FURTHER ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE PLACED COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET, THE IT PROOF, ITR AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE DONORS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO AND THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION WAS MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THEM. AS REGARDS THE ABSENCE OF AVAILABILITY OF LOVE AND AFFECTION BETWEEN THE DONOR AND DONE E THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT IS UNWARRANTED AND BEYOND IMAGINATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE HINDU CULTURE FOR WHICH THE AO HAS NO REGARDS. SHE POINTED OUT THAT AT THE RELEVANT TIME DONOR AND DONE E WERE CLOSE NEIGHBO U RS AND THEIR FAMILIES WERE INTERACTING WITH EACH OTHER VERY CLOSELY , B OTH WERE HAVING ENJOY ED TOGETHER FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS WHICH TRANSFORMED INTO GOOD AND HEALTHY RELATION MORE THAN BLOOD RELATION AND THE GIFT S IN QUESTION RESULT OF IT. FINALLY SHE ARGUED THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE , BEFORE THE AO AND THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED H ER ONUS BY PRODUCING VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MAY BE DELETED IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS. 14. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY. HE HAS ALSO FILED TWO PAGE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO SUPPORT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH HE HAS CITED 8 JUDGEMENTS DELIVERED BY THE HON BLE HIGH C OURTS . F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DATED 22.01.2020 , IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - SUB : WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE ABOVE CASE - REG. IN THE ABOVE CASE, APART FROM RELYING ON THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A), IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED: 1 . TIRATH RAM GUPTA VS CIT P&H HIGH COURT 2006 [2009] 177 TAXMAN 294 (PUNJAB & HARYANA)/[2008] 304 ITR 145 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) A GIFT CANNOT BE GENUINE BECAUSE THE AMOUNT HAS COME BY WAY OF CHEQUE OR DRAFT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, HIS CREDITWORTHINESS, RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DONEE AND THE OCCASION ARE TO BE PROVED TO BE GENUINE. 12 2 . B ALBIR SINGH VS CIT P&H HIGH COURT 2010 [2010] 8 TAXMANN.COM 202 (PUNJAB & HARYANA)/[2011] 196 TAXMAN 339 (PUNJAB & HARYANA)/[2011] 334 ITR 287 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) HIGH COURT AFFIRMED FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HOLDING THAT GIFT WAS NOT GENUINE 3 .. JASPAL SINGH VS. CIT P & H HIGH COURT 2006 (2007) 158 TAXMAN 306 (PUNJAB & HARYANA)/[2007] 290 ITR 306 (PUNJAB & HARYANA)/[2006] 205 CTR 624 (P & H) WHERE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED CERTAIN SUM AS GIFFS BUT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT DONOR HAD MEANS AND GIFT WAS GENUINE AND WAS GIVEN OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION, AMOUNT RECEIVED AS GIFT WAS CORRECTLY TO BE ADDED TO INCOME OF ASSESSEE 4 . CIT VS ANIL KUMAR DELHI HIGH COURT 2007 [2008] 167 TAXMAN 143 (DELHI)/[2007] 292 ITR 552 (DELHI) ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TWO GIFTS OF CER TAIN AMOUNT FROM NRE ACCOUNTS OF TWO DONORS. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAD NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANYTHING TO SHOW AS TO WHAT WAS FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF DONORS, WHAT WAS CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONORS, WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP DONORS HAD WITH ASSESSEE, WHAT WERE SOURCES OF FUNDS GIFTED TO ASSESSEE AND WHETHER DONORS HAD CAPACITY OF GIVING LARGE AMOUNT OF GIFT TO ASSESSEE. IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE 5 . SARITA AGGARWAL VS ITO DELHI HIGH COURT 2015 [2015] 56 TAXMANN.COM 195 (DELHI)/[2015] 231 TAXMAN 600 (DELHI)/[2015] 373 ITR 586 (DELHI)/[2017] 294 CTR 71 (DELHI) WHERE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE GENUINENES OF GIFT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM AN NRI A NC ALSO FACTUM THAT TRANSACTION WAS OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION, A SINE QUA NON TO ESTABLISH A GENUINE GIFT, AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO ASSESSEE'S INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 6 . E. UMMER BAVA VS CIT KERALA HIGH COURT 2016 [2016] 72 TAXMANN.COM 123 (KERALA) WHERE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT DURING YEAR HE HAD RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS. 35 LAKHS FROM HIS BROTHER AND ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 ADDED GIFT AMOUNT TO ASSESSEE'S INCOME, SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONOR AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION, IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED 7 . PANDIT VIJAY KANT SHARMA VS CIT ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT 2017 [2017] 88 TAXMANN.COM 219 (ALLAHABAD) WHERE AUTHORITIES BELOW MADE ADDITION OF AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AS GIFT UNDER SECTION 68 TAKI NG A VIEW THAT GIFTS WERE NOT GENUINE AS DONORS WERE VERY PETTY PERSONS HAVING NO SOURCE TO GIFT SUCH A HEAVY AMOUNT TO ASSESSEE, SAID FINDING BEING FINDING OF FACT, DID NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE 8 CIT VS M. S. AGGARWAL DELHI HIGH COURT 2018 [2018] 93 TAXMANN.COM 247 (DELHI) WHERE IN COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO MADE ADDITION TO ASSESSEE'S UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN RESPECT OF GIFT, IN VIEW OF FACT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT EVEN KNOW DONOR PERSONALLY AND, MOREOVER, HE HIMSELF IN PRESENCE OF HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAD MADE A STATEMENT UNDER SEC. 132(4) ADMITTING THAT SAID GIFT WAS BOGUS, IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS TO BE CONFIRMED . SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SMC BENCH, ITAT, NEW DELHI. 13 15. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REQUESTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.3,00,000/ - FROM THREE DIFFERENT PERSONS EACH OF THESE THREE PERSONS HAD GIFTED RS.1,00,000/ - TO THE ASSESSEE , WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AND GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REQUESTED THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 1 6 . I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON MERITS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE BALANCE SHEET ANNEXED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.3,00,000/ - BY WAY OF GIFTS AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETA ILS OF DONORS FROM WHOM GIFTS OF RS.3,00,000/ - WERE RECEIVED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE FILED GIFT DEED S ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVITS FROM THE DONORS. AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME , THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND DONOR WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE THREE DONORS ARE NEITHER PART OF HIS FAMILY NOR RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THERE IS NO RELATION B ETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND DONOR THE QUESTION OF LOVE AND AFFECTION DOES NOT ARISE MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE BY THE DONOR WHICH IS VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL FOR PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS. EVEN OTHERWISE , AFTER EXAMINING THE GIFT DEEDS, INCOME TAX PARTICULARS AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE DONORS THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND THAT ALL THE THREE DONORS HAD SHOWN RETURNED INCOME WHICH WAS VERY MEAGRE AND WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R EPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER EXAMINING THE COPIES OF THE PASS BOOKS OF THE DONORS , IT WAS FOUND THAT THE FUNDS WERE CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF ALL THE DONORS ON THE DATE WHEN THE GIFT DEEDS WERE MADE. IN FACT IN THE CASE OF SHR I NARESH JAIN THE CHEQUE FOR THE GIFT AMOUNT WAS DISHONOURED DUE TO INADEQUATE FUNDS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE EXTRACT OF THE PASS BOOK. 14 IT IS VERY UNUSUAL THAT THE PERSON WITH LOWER ECONOMIC STATUS HAVE GIVEN GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIR ECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DONOR FOR CONFIRMATION OF GIFT TRANSACTION VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 15.05.2007, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DONORS FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE GIFT TRANSACTION MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS FOR MAKING THE COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE AO DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED ON 22.05.2006, 25.05.2007 AND 11.0 6 .2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE DONOR ON 04.06.2007 FOR VERIFICATION OF THE DONOR AND BY REGISTERED POST TO THE THREE DONORS AND THEY WERE ASKED TO ATTEND ON 14.06.2007. SUMMONS ISSUED TO SHRI NARESH JAIN W AS RET U RNED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WITH REMARKS NO SUCH ADDRESS . SUMMONS TO THE OTHER TWO DONORS, NAMELY, SHRI GOPAL BANSAL AND SHRI UMESH JAIN WERE RETURNED UN - SERVED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WITH THE REMARKS LEFT WITHOUT ADDRESS AND NO SUCH PERSON RESPECTIVELY. THESE FACTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE ON 25.06.2007 AND ASKED FOR THE NON - SERVICE OF THE SUMMON ON TH E DONOR , SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED ADVERSELY. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DONORS AND COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY VALUABLE EVIDENCE AND SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE DONOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNIT IES TO PRODUCE THE DONOR S AND FILE EVIDENCE S SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . B UT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE DONOR AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE S FOR SUBSTANTI ATING THE CLAIM . KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE CREDIT S APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GIFT BECAUSE THIS GIFT IS AGAINST HUMAN PROBABILITY FOR SUCH LARGE SUM OF MONEY GIFTED TO THE STRANGERS. THE A SSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE S TO COUNTER THE REQUIREMENT AND TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IS BANK STATEMENT, ITR, GIFT DEED, BANK ACCOUNTS ESTABLISHED THAT THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT GENUINE AND IS ONL Y TO CIRCULATE HIS OWN MONEY IN THE GARB OF GIFT AND TO EVADE THE TAX WHICH IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY AND AGAINST THE HUMAN 15 PROBABILITY. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE TH E GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS IN DISPUTE BY NOT PRODUCING SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE S BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES . THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS AS PER LAW AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY , BECAUSE THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED AFTER EXAMINING THE PROVISION S OF LAW AS WELL AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH VARIOUS CASE LAWS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS . T HEREFORE, I UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HERBY DISMISSED. 17. AS REGARDS OTHER 03 APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSES ARE CONCERNED, FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW AS TAKEN IN ITA NO. 1738/DE L/2018 (AY 2005 - 06) IN THE CASE OF SMT. MEENU JAIN VS. ITO, AS AFORESAID, THE ITA NO. 1739/DEL/2018 (AY 2005 - 06) IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUSHMA JAIN VS. ITO; ITA NO. 1740/DEL/2018 (AY 2005 - 06) IN THE CASE OF SMT. DAYA JAIN VS. ITO AND ITA NO. 1741/DEL/2018 ( AY 2005 - 06) IN THE CASE OF SH. SUDHIR JAIN (JUF) VS. ITO ALSO STAND DISMISSED. 1 8 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 04 APPEAL S OF DIFFERENT ASSESSES ARE DISMISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED ON : _ 03 RD FEBRUARY, 2020 . SD/ - ( H. S. SIDHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 03 RD FEBRUARY, 2020 . *MEHTA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT S 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A PPEALS ) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI 16 DATE OF DICTATION 2 8 .01.2020. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 30.01.2020. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 0 3.0 2 .2020. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/ PS 0 3.0 2 .2020. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 0 3.0 2 .2020. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 0 3.0 2 .2020. DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 0 3.0 2 .2020. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 0 3.0 2 .2020. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER