DCIT, JODHPUR V. Herchand Ram Punaram Jangid, HUF, JODHPUR

ITA 280/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 28023314 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK ARORA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Document seized; Additional evidence; Right to appeal; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 132; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH: J ODHPUR ( BEFORE SHRI H ARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) I.T.A. NO. 280 /JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) DCIT, VS HERCHAND RAM PUNARAM JANGID, HUF, CENTRAL CIR CLE - 2, G - 132, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR. JODHPUR. PAN NO. AADHH9786D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: - SHRI AMIT KOTHARI, AND SHRI DEEPAK ARORA. DEPARTMENT BY : - SHRI O.P. MEENA - CIT - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 28 /0 8 /201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 / 08 /2014 O R D E R P E R HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 28/02/2014. 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HUF. ON 15/16 - 12 - 2009 SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ACT FOR SHORT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDEN CE OF SHRI PUNARAM JANGID. DURING THIS SEARCH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND, WHICH WERE SEIZED AS PER PANCHNAMA DATED 16.12.2009. ON EXAMINATION OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, SOURCE S WERE FOUND TO PERTAIN TO THIS ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT A NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT WA S ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE - HUF RESPONDED THIS NOTICE BY FILING RETURN ON 10.10.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 180/ - FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS AGAINST WHICH ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 75,65,355/ - . THE A.O. HAS COMPUTED ASSESSEES INCOME AS UNDER: - RETURNED INCOME RS. 180/ - ADD: ADDITION U/ 68 AS PER PARA 5 RS. 45,00,000/ - ADD: ADDITION U/S 68 AS PER PARA 6 RS. 30,65,175/ - TOTAL INCOME RS. 75,65,355/ - 2.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED F IRST APPEAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED BOTH THE ABOVE ADDITIONS VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER. NOW, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS FILED THIS APPEAL B Y RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 3 A. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) A LWAR HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES WERE NOT FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. B. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ALWAR HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 75,65,175/ - [RS. 45,0 0,000/ - + RS. 30,65,175/ - ) MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT THOUGH THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS NOT PROVED. 2.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AT LENGTH. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD. 2.3 THE FACTS APROPOS GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL REL ATING TO DELETION OF TOTAL ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL OF EVIDENCES ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE LOANS OF RS. 4 5LAKHS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE - SHEET. AS PER THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THESE LOANS WITH THE HELP OF NAME/COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE GIVEN OF THESE LOANS ALONG WITH THEIR PAN ETC. THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAS ADDED RS. 45 LAKHS IN HIS INCOME OF THIS YEAR. AS AGAINST THE ABOVE ADDITIONS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOUND THEM AS E XPLAINED AND HAS DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS AFTER ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. LIKEWISE, IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS 4 SHOWN A SUM OF RS. 30,65,175/ - WHICH WAS NOT SUSTAINED WITH THE HELP OF ANY DOCUMENT. THEREFORE, THE A.O. ALSO ADDED A SUM O F RS. 30,65,000/ - . 2.4 BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE REITERATED THEIR ARGUMENTS TAKEN BEFORE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE FOUND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY EXPLAINED THE IMPUGNED LOAN AMOUNT. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE FORWARDED TO THE A.O. WHO AFTER EXAMINING THEM IN DETAIL HAS SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT (R.R.) ON 20.02.2014. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY ACCEPTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF S. RULE 46A. THEREFORE, WE DONT FIND FORCE IN GROUND NO. (1) OF THIS APPEAL. THE REASO NS FOR ADMISSION ST AND SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS : 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS. JAIPUR UDYOG LTD. 227ITR 0345 [1997] - [ RAJ]. THE TRIBUNAL HAS POWER UNDER THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, TO TAKE FRESH EVIDENCE OR IT MAY DIRECT THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER TO TAKE EVIDENCE, IF THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED B Y SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE . 5 FROM A PERUSAL OF RULE 29 OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN REQUIRE ANY DOCUMENT TO BE PRODUCED OR, ANY ENTRIES TO BE EXAMINED OR ANY AFFIDAVIT TO BE FILED, TO ENABLE IT TO PASS ORDERS OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE, OR IF THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE DECIDED THE CASE WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE . IN A PARTICULAR CASE WHERE EVIDENCE IS DIRECTED TO BE ADDUCED BEFORE THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES, IT IS NOT EXPECTED OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER ON THE MERITS. THE ONLY PROPER COURSE FOR IT IS TO SEND THE CASE BACK TO TH E INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES FOR TAKING EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND PASSING ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. FROM THE ABOVE ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THE PRECEDING PARAS AS WELL AS EXCERPTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IT MAY KINDLY BE PERUSED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVE N AMPLE AND TIMELY OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE AND IT WAS NOT AT ALL PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE. 2. FAIR DEAL FILAMENTS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [2008] 302 ITR 173 - [GUJ.] RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULE S, 1962 AND RULE 29 OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, ARE SIMILAR AS REGARDS ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. NO PERSON IS ENTITLED TO SEEK ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS A 6 MATTER OF RIGHT . THE OPENING PORTION OF BOTH THE RULES IS C OUCHED IN NEGATIVE TERMINOLOGY AND PLACES AN EMBARGO ON A PERSON FROM SEEKING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE ONLY EXCEPTION BEING FULFILMENT OF THE STIPULATED CONDITIONS . IT IS HUMBLY OPINED THAT TEXT OF THE JUDGEMENT IS CLEAR AND SELF - EXPLANATORY . FROM THE ABOVE ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THE PRECEDING PARAS AS WELL AS EXCERPTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IT MAY KINDLY BE PERUSED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS LED DOWN BY THE HON BLE COURT. 3 ] HAJI LAL MOHD. BIRI WORKS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 275 ITR 496 [2005] - [ALL] A PERUSAL OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRODUCE FRESH ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, IN APPEAL. HOWE VER, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AS MENTIONED IN CLAUSES (A), (B), (C) AND (D) OF SUB - RULE (1) OF RULE 46A, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE FILED. SUB - RULE (2) OF RULE 46A PROVIDES THAT NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB - RULE (1) UNLESS THE AUTHORITY ADMIT TING IT RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. SUB - RULE (2) CASTS A DUTY ON THE AUTHORITY CONCERNE D TO RECORD R EASONS IN WRITING FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. UNDER SUB - RULE (3) THE FURTHER REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE APPELLATE 7 AUTHORIT Y SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB - RULE (1) UNLESS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR THE DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE OR TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. MERE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WILL NOT GIVE RISE TO A PRESUMPTION THAT HE CONSENTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT IS HUMBLY OPINE D THAT TEXT OF THE JUDGEMENT IS CLEAR AND SELF - EXPLANATORY. FROM THE ABOVE ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THE PRECEDING PARAS AS WELL AS EXCERPTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IT MAY KINDLY BE PERUSED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT JUSTIFIED THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS MENTIONED IN VARIOUS CLAUSES OF RULE 46A. 4. N. B. SURTI FAMILY TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 288 ITR 523 - 120071 [GUJ] THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ON AU GUST 16, 1993, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED AUGUST 10, 1993, CLAIMING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE TRUST DEED DATED APRIL 4, 1977, HAD SINCE BEEN TRACED AND SHOULD BE ADMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS EVIDENCE. THE TRIBUNAL REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 8 THE UNDERSIGNED PRAYS TO YOUR KINDSELF TO FOLLOW THIS JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE COURT IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THE PRECEDING PARAS AS WELL AS EXCERPTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. 5. SITAL PRASAD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 187 ITR 0135 [ 1991 ] - [ALL. ] NEITHER THE CERTIFICATE WAS FILED NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT FILED. THE PETITION WAS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE CARE TO FILE THE CERTIFICATE EVEN WITH THE MEMO OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS SOUGHT TO BE FILED ONLY MUCH LATER AND IT WAS REFUSED TO BE RECEIVED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY. THE UNDERSIGNED PRAYS TO YOUR KINDSELF TO F OLLOW THIS JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE COURT IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THE PRECEDING PARAS AS WELL AS EXCERPTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. 6. VISHWANATH CLORINATE AND CHEMICALS P. LTD. VS. ITO 8 ITR (TRIB) 0387 [ 2011 ] - ITAT [ AHMD ] IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962, THERE WAS NO REASON TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVIDENCE PRODUCED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE IN THE 9 FORM OF THE NEW UNAUDITED BALANCE - SHEET, ACKNO WLEDGMENT OF THE FILING OF THE RETURN FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, PROCESSING OF THAT RETURN AND THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE - SHEET FILED WITH IT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO DENY THE FILING OF A GENUINE RETURN OF INCOME AND DOCUMENTS. THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ITS CASE AND SUCH ONUS WAS NOT DISCHARGED. THE UNDERSIGNED PRAYS TO YOUR KINDSELF TO F OLLOW THIS JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE COURT IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THE PRECEDING PARAS AS WELL AS EXCERPTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. 7. MOSER BAER INDIA LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WP(C) 6974/2008 (DELHI) A CLOSE READING OF THE OBSERVATION - WOULD SHOW THAT THE DICTUM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS IF APPLIED WOULD COVER THOSE CASES WHERE AN AGGRIEVED PARTY HAS AN UNBRIDLED RIGHT OF APPEAL ON FACTS AND LAW, AND A COMPLETE FREEDOM TO FILE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY. IN OTHER WORDS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS REQUIR ED TO EXAMINE THE CIRCUMSTANCES DE NOVO ON - WHATEVER EVIDENCE THAT MAY BE PUT BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 92 CA THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO COMPUTE THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ALP D ETERMINED BY THE TPO. 10 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AN APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 246A OF THE ACT. WHILE THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 250 IN DISPOSING OF ANY APPEAL BEFORE IT IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY EITHER HIMSELF OR BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO SO AND RECEIVE THE RESULT OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT FILE ANY FRESH EVIDENCE EXCE P T IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A. THE RULE 46A INTER ALIA PERMITS AN ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ONLY IF HE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT HE FALLS UNDER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS ENVISAGED UNDER THE SAID RULE : - I. WHERE AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EITHER REFUSED TO A DMIT EVIDENCE WHICH HE OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED; OR II. WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; OR III. WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE F ROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR IV. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEA L. 11 IT IS EVIDENT THAT UPON A BARE READING OF RULE 46A THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE A RI G HT TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNLESS HIS CASE FALLS WITHIN ONE OF THE SITUATIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RULE 46A . THE DISCRETION TO PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE LIES WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS IS DUTY BOUND TO ADMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WISHES TO ADDUCE, BASED ON WHICH HE WOULD CONDUCT A DE NOVO EXAMINATION OF THE CASE BEFORE HIM. WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS THAT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE ACT ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING BEFORE THE TPO. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED ASG THAT THE F AILURE TO GRANT AN ORAL HEARING, IS A DEFECT WHICH COULD BE CURED B Y PROVIDING SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY IN THE APPELLATE FORUM IS FAR TOO EXPANSIVE AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . WHETHER IN A GIVE CASE AN APPELLATE FORUM, WILL BE AN EFFECTIVE SUBSTITUTE WILL DEPEND ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, AND THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING IN THE CASE. THIS, ACCORDING TO US, IS THE CORRECT AND TRUE RATIO OF JUDGMENT OF HOUSE OF LORDS IN LLOYDS VS. MCMAHON (SUPRA). IT IS HUMBLY OPINED THAT TEXT OF THE JUDGEMENT IS CLE AR AND SELF - EXPLANATORY. FROM THE ABOVE ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THE PRECEDING PARAS AS WELL AS EXCERPTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IT MAY KINDLY BE PERUSED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT JUSTIFIED THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS MENTIONED IN VARIOUS CLAUSES OF RULE 46A AND 12 TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CASE DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS/SITUATIONS 8. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. MODERN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ITA NO.1501 OF 2010 (DELHI) THE CIT (A) AFTER ADMITTING THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON THE SAME WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION. NO DOUBT, THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS CALLED FOR AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AO DID NOT GO INTO TO THE VERACITY OF THE SAME AND REPRODUCED SOME FACTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE REASONS THAT THE AO STRONG L Y FELT THAT THERE WAS LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM WHEN HE HAD BEEN GIVEN NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES AND THEREFORE, HE THE SAID EVIDENCE AND DID NOT DO AN Y FURTHER EXERCISE TO VERIFY THE SAME. 3. WE HAVE FOUND THAT NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH. THE FOLLOWING CHART DEP ICT S THE EVIDENCE/ PROOF SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PROVI NG ITS CASE: I. M/ S SHARMA INDUSTRIES RS.45,00,000 / - A. CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT PB 37 B. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT PB 38 41 C. COPY OF I.T. RET URN AND BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y.2009 - 10 OF CREDITOR PB. 42 AND P.B.109 121 13 D. CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF PARTNER SHRI PRAVEEN SHARMA IN THE BOOKS OF M/S SHARMA INDUSTRIES P.B.122 - 123. E. RELIANCE ON JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL INDIA V. ACIT REPORTED IN (2013) 259 CTR (RAJ) 281 DEFINING SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A TO BE CONFINED ONLY TO MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH. NOTHING FOUND TO SUGGEST CREDIT WAS NOT GENUINE. D. RELY ON OTHER DECISIONS AT P.B. 21 - 28. II. RS.30,65,175/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURE LAND AT VILLAGE DANGIAWAS : A. COPY OF ACCOUNT FOR AGRICULTURE LAND AT VILLAGE DANGIAWAS K.NO.292, 291/1 P.B.43 B. COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED IN THE NAME OF HARCHAND RAM PUNA RAM JANGI D HUF P.B.44 52 C. BANK STATEMENT OF POONARAM HARCHANDRAM JANGID P.B. 57 - 58. D. COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN THE NAME OF HARCHAND RAM JANGID (TO PROVE THE SOURCE) P.B.59 61 . 3.1 THE A.O. HAS MOVED ON THE WRONG PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE - HUF CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 28.08.2008. IN FACT THE HUF COMES INTO EXISTENCE, AUTOMATICALLY, ON THE DATE OF BIRTH OF MALE CHILD IN THE 14 FAMILY. THE LOAN OF RS. 45 LACS WAS TAKEN FROM M/S. SHARMA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WHICH FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE CASH CREDITOR HAS DULY CONFIRMED LOAN WHICH IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FILED. THE LOAN GIVEN BY M/S. SHARMA INDUSTRIES HAS BEEN FOUND DEBITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNER, SHRI PRAVEEN SHARMA. A COPY OF THIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FILED ON RECORD. A COPY OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THIS PARTNER IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM M/S. SHARMA INDUSTRIES HAS ALSO BEEN FILED. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THESE DOCUMENTS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE ENTIRE LOAN AMOUNT IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 BY PROVIDING THE IDENTITY AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND ALSO THE GENUINITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. 3.2 FROM THE EVIDENCE S FILED ON RECORD INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND IS FOU ND TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE - HUF IN F.Y. 2007 - 08. THE EVIDENCE REGARDING PURCHASE OF LAND WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH (EXHIBIT - 5). THE ASSESSEE - HUF HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF FROM SHRI GANGA RAM S /O CHOUTHA RAM FOR A CONSIDERATION O F RS. 29,65,000/ - ON 16.08.2007. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. A COPY OF SALE DEEDS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE(S) OF INVESTMENT 15 ROUTING THROUGH FATHER HAS BEEN FILED ON RECORD, WHICH EXPLAINS THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT. THUS, THIS I NVEST MENT IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ALSO STANDS EXPLAINED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DELETED BOTH THESE ADDITION S . 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST , 2014. SD/ - SD/ - (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH AUGUST , 2014 VL/ - COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT BY OR DER 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, JODHPUR