ITO, Gurgaon V. Shri Attar Singh, Gurgaon

ITA 2678/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97088 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Tax effect; Onus to prove
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 & 2762/D/13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A NEW DELHI SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2678/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS SHRI ATTAR SINGH, WARD-II(2), 797, SARASWATI VIHAR, HSIDC BUILDING, GURGAON. UDYOG VIHAR, (PAN: APQPS5832K) PHASE-V, GURGAON. I.T.A.NO.2762/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI ATTAR SINGH, VS ITO, WARD-II(2), GURGAON. GURGAON. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT B Y: SHRI J.P. CHANDRAKAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.P. GUGLANI, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 27.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS BY TH E ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), FARIDABAD DAT ED 18.2.13 IN APPEAL NO. 114/GGN/10-11 FOR AY 2008-09. ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 & 2762/D/13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 2 REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 FOR AY 200 8-09 2. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AS PER FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS GROUND OF THE A PPEAL ALONG WITH AGGREGATE TAX EFFECT ON ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE CONTESTED IN ITAT O F RS.3,36,000/- WHICH IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 4 LAKH AND THEREFO RE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. LD. DR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE AGGREGATE TAX EFFECT ON TH E ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS RS.3,36,000/- WHICH IS LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKH. 3. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE RECENT DECISION OF CIT VS M/S P.S. JAIN AND CO. DATED 2.8.2010 IN ITR 179/ 1991 SUBMITTED THAT THE RECENT BOARD INSTRUCTION REVISING THE MONETARY LIMI T TO RS. 4 LAKH FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT ON INCOME TAX MATTERS IS VER Y MUCH APPLICABLE TO THE OLD REFERENCES WHICH ARE STILL PENDING UNDECIDED BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. LD. DR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE BOARD INSTRUCTION NO. 5/20 14 ISSUED BY CBDT ON 10.7.2014 IS APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE NOTED SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE S IDES, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO PROCEED WITH THE CASES HAVING TAX EFFECT OF LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKH. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS M/S P.S. JAIN & CO. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THIS BEING A LOW TAX EF FECT CASE, THE APPEAL OF THE ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 & 2762/D/13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 3 REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AND WE DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA 2762/DEL/2013 FOR AY 2008- 09 6. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NATUR E WHICH REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSE E READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CIT (APPEALS), FARIDABAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,80,000/- DEPOSITED IN THE APPELLANT'S BANK A/ C BEARING NUMBER 53110332061 OF STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, GURG AON AS THE APPELLANT'S INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES UND ER SECTION 69 OF INCOME TAX, ACT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, CIT (APPEALS) FARIDABAD, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJEC TING THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHREE ADISAL, FATHER OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT EXAMINING HIM. 7. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. LD. COUNSEL O F THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED 6.12.2010 SUBMITTED B EFORE THE AO THAT THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS.2,80,000 WAS DEPOSITED BY HIS FA THER SHRI ADISAL IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF STEEL FOR CONS TRUCTION OF HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT IN TH IS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI ADISAL DATED 3.12.2010 BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH COPIES OF THE REVENUE PATWARI RECORD FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 WHICH C LEARLY SHOWS THAT THE FATHER ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 & 2762/D/13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 4 OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI ADISAL WAS OWNING AGRICULTURAL LAND JOINTLY WITH OTHER CO- OWNERS AND HE WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE ONLY OUT OF HIS SHARE OF LAND MEASURING ABOUT 8 ACRES SITUATED AT VILLAGE KH ATOLI, SULTANPUR, DISTRICT MAHENDARGARH. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF SHRI ADISAL WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HIS INCOME WAS TAX FREE, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO FILE ANY INCOME TAX RETURN OR TO KEEP ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER RECORDS FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME. LD. COUN SEL VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE AO DISCARDED AND IGNORED THE VITAL EVIDENC E FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF IMPUGNED AMOUNT IN THE FORM O F AFFIDAVIT OF HIS FATHER AND COPIES OF THE REVENUE PATWARI RECORDS WHICH IS NOT A JUSTIFIED APPROACH. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE AO TREATED THE SUM OF RS.2,80,000 DEPOSITED IN THE SB ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BY HIS FATHER AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME/UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WHICH IS NOT A CORREC T AND JUSTIFIED APPROACH AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POI NTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN REGARDING IMPUGNED AMOUNT AS PER REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AND IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS ONLY PRIMARY BURDEN TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS AND THE SOURC ES OF INVESTMENT WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. 8. LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO O PERATIVE PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE CI T(A) WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE PROVISIONS IN WHICH THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS INTENDE D TO BE ADDED TO THE ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 & 2762/D/13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 5 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER, THE CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT S HOULD BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, OTHERWISE THE SAME IS ADDED BACK AS UNEXP LAINED INCOME U/S 69 OR 69B OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL AGAIN TOOK US THROUGH RELE VANT OPERATIVE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE AO WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF ALLEGED DEPOSIT AS IN THE LAST SENTENC E OF OPERATIVE PARA 3, HE CONCLUDES THAT THE SUM OF RS.2,80,000 DEPOSITED IN SB ACCOUNT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME/UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND IS A DDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FINALLY PARTED WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT SURE ABOUT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS WHICH WERE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING A DDITION AND WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF IN VESTMENT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 9. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, LD. DR FAIRLY ACCEPTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT OF HIS FATHER SHRI ADISAL ALONG WITH COPI ES OF THE REVENUE PATWARI RECORDS FOR AY 2005-06 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNING AGRICULTURE LAND JOINTLY WITH SHRI TOTAL RAM PRABHA TI LAL AND HIS AGRICULTURE INCOME WAS EXEMPTED FROM TAX. HOWEVER, LD. DR POIN TED OUT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE FATHER OF ASSESSEE SHRI A DISAL ACTUALLY EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY DOING FARMING ON THE SAID LA ND, THEREFORE, THE VERSION ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 & 2762/D/13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 6 MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI ADISAL CANNOT BE HELD AS SACROSANCT AND THUS, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHAR GED THE ONUS LEVIED ON HIM AS PER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. LD. DR STRONGL Y SUPPORTING THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER FAC TS NOTED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.2,80,000 IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT MERE NON-MENTIONING OF S ECTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND MENTIONING OF TWO PROVISIONS IN THE APPEL LATE ORDER DOES NOT VITIATE THE JUSTIFIED ACTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 10. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED REJOIND ER TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND CONTENDED THAT THE IM PUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IS CONSIDERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSE SSEE, THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AND BURDEN TO PROVE THAT TH E SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT WAS THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF HIS FATHER AND THE IM PUGNED AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY HIS FATHER ON 6.11.2007 OUT OF AGRICUL TURE INCOME EARNED FROM ACTIVE FARMING ACTIVITIES OF 8 ACRE OF LAND SITUATE D AT VILLAGE KHATOLI, SULTANPUR, DISTRICT MAHENDARGARH. THEREFORE, THE ONUS WAS SHI FTED TO THE AO TO DEMOLISH THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO ESTABLISH T HIS ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.2,80,000 OUT OF T HE INCOME OF RECEIPTS OF ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 & 2762/D/13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 7 UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED B Y THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE . 11. ON CAREFUL READING OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WE N OTE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITH FOLLOWING FINDING S AND CONCLUSION:- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SUB MISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE REMAND REPORT SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS SENT TO THE APPELLANT TO FILE A REJOINDER. THE FACT THAT THE AP PELLANT DID NOT FILE ANY REJOINDER IN SPITE OF 3 NOTICES SENT SUBSE QUENTLY GOES TO PROVE THE POINT THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT WHAT THE AO IS SUBMITTING IN HIS REMAND REPORT. IT IS TRUE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE LA ND RECORDS SUBSTANTIATING THAT HIS FATHER SH.ADISAL IS THE OWN ER OF LAND BUT AS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE AO THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE GIVEN BY APPELLANT TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT HE RECEIVED PROCEEDS FROM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. HENCE, IN THIS CASE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON SAID TO HAVE DEPOSIT ED THE MONEY IS NOT ESTABLISHED AND THUS THIS AMOUNT IS HELD TO BE THE APPELLANT'S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND THUS CHARGEA BLE TO TAX U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN CIT VS K.CHINNATHA MBAM 292 ITR 682 (SC) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT CASH DEPOSITED I N BANK SHOULD BE EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE OTHERWISE, THE SAME IS ADD ED BACK AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S 69 OR 69 B. HENCE I HOLD THA T THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,80,000/- DEPOSITED IN THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT IS APPELLANT'S INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 12. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE CI T(A) HAS MAINLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS K.CHINNATHAMBAM (SUPRA) WHEREIN REVERSING THE DECISION OF HONBLE M ADRAS HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT S PRIMARILY RESTED ON THE PERSON IN WHOSE NAME THE DEPOSITS APPEARED IN THE V ARIOUS BANKS AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAD BEEN PLACING THEIR DEPOSITS ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 & 2762/D/13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 8 WITH THE FIRM THROUGH THEIR RELATIVES AND FRIENDS A ND THERE WAS NO LINK UP OF ALL THOSE AMOUNTS WITH THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM. FINALLY, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF MONEY, THUS, THE DEPARTMENT WAS RIGHT IN MAKING AN INDIVIDUAL ASSESS MENT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN WE CAREFULLY PERUSE THE DICTA LAID DOWN BY APEX COURT IN THIS CASE, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE CASE IS RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT IN REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED MONEY ETC. WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS PRIMARIL Y RESTED ON THE PERSON IN WHOSE NAME THE DEPOSITS APPEARED IN THE VARIOUS BAN KS. HOWEVER, THE PRESENT CASE IS PERTAINING TO PROVISIONS OF SEDITION 69 OF THE ACT WHICH RELATES TO ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND AS PER ALLEGATIONS OF TH E AO, THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.2,80,000 FOR PURCHASE OF STEEL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN BY WAY OF FILING AFFIDAVIT OF HIS FATHER SHRI ADISAL AND COPIES OF T HE REVENUE PATWARI RECORD SHOWING THAT HIS FATHER OWNS 8 ACRE OF AGRICULTURE LAND JOINTLY WITH OTHER CO- OWNERS AND THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT DEPOSITED TO HIS SAV ING ACCOUNT WAS GIVEN BY HIS FATHER OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED FR OM THE AGRICULTURE FARMING ACTIVITY ON THE SAID LAND. THE AO HELD THAT THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN A REASONABLE AND SATISFACTORY MANNER. THE CIT(A) UPH ELD THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO BY HOLDING THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH E OWNER OF THE LAND BUT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EVID ENCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 & 2762/D/13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 9 SUBSTANTIATE THAT HE RECEIVED PROCEEDS FROM AGRICUL TURAL PRODUCE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSO N SAID TO HAVE DEPOSITED THE MONEY IS NOT ESTABLISHED AND THUS, THE IMPUGNED AMO UNT DESERVES TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 13. IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE OPER ATIVE PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE CLEARLY OBSERVE THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELO W HAVE NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT THAT SHRI ADISAL WAS OWNING 8 ACRES OF LAND JOINTLY WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DISCARDED AND REJECTED THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, AFFIRMING THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO THAT THERE HAS B EEN NO EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT HE HAD RECEIVED PROCE EDS FROM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. WHEN WE OBSERVE THE COPIES OF THE REVENUE PATWARI R ECORD COLUMN 5, WE NOTE THAT IN THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURISTS IT HAS BEEN M ENTIONED KHUD KAST MEANING THEREBY THE OWNER OF THE LAND HIMSELF IS DOING AGRI CULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON THE SAID LAND, THEREFORE, WE MAY SAFELY INFER THAT THE FATHE R OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTIVELY DOING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ON THE 8 ACRE OF LAND W HICH WAS OWNED BY HIM JOINTLY WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT FINANCIA L YEAR 2007-08. IN THIS SITUATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSI ON OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT HE (SHRI ADISAL) RECEIVED PROCEEDS FROM AGRICULTURE PR ODUCE WHICH WAS FURTHER GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF STEEL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ASSESSEES ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 & 2762/D/13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 10 HOUSE. IN THIS SITUATION, PRIMARY ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AND HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY T HE ASSESSEE. IN THIS SITUATION, THE ONUS WAS SHIFTED ON THE AO TO SHOW THAT THE EXP LANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI ADISAL HAD NOT EARNED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL LA ND OWNED BY HIM. FINALLY, WE REACH TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE PROPERLY EXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.2,80,000 WHICH WAS INCURRED BY HIM TOWARDS PURCHASE OF STEEL TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF HIS HOUSE, THEREFORE, NO AD DITION U/S 69 OF THE ACT IS CALLED FOR. OUR CONCLUSION ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT INCLUDING JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LAL TRANSP ORT CORPORATION (2009) 180 TAXMAN 185 (P&H) . ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPU GNED ADDITION OF RS.2,80,000. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.8.2015. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 28TH AUGUST 2015 GS ITA NO. 2678/D/2013 & 2762/D/13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 11 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR