Smt. Rashmi Chhibba Jauhar, New Delhi V. ACIT, Noida

ITA 3035/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3666 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, C/O. CHANDRA SHEKHAR BAROLA, 204, F.155 C.A. BUILDING, NEAR SETHI MARKET, MANGAL BAZAR, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI 002. PAN ABIPC2132J VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, NOIDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI ROHIT TIWARI, ADVOCATE. FOR REVENUE : SHRI KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 0 1 .11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 .11.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NOIDA, DATED 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2017, FOR THE A.Y. 2006-2007 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] IS WRONG AND BAD IN L AW. 2 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO OF DISALLOWING THE VEHICLE RUNNING AN D MAINTENANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.52,381. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO OF DISALLOWING THE TRAVELLING EXPENSE S AMOUNTING TO RS.1,28,341/-. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN PARTIALLY C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO OF MAKING DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF JEWELRY AND PURCHASE OF TWO CARS. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN ENHANCING T HE INCOME BY MAKING AN DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,93,085./- ON ACCO UNT OF REPAYMENT OF CAR LOAN TO KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK. 2. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.5,05, 838. THE ASSESSEE IS DOING CONSULTANCY SERVICES. WITH RESPEC T OF RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE, ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.2, 02,381 IN PROFIT & LOSS A/C. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE COPY OF 3 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. ACCOUNT TO JUSTIFY BUSINESS USE SINCE HER OFFICE IS AT SAME PLACE AS HER RESIDENCE AND SHE IS NOT REQUIRED TO TRAVEL TO PLACE OF WORK EVERY DAY AND HER BUYERS ARE FOREIGN CONCERNS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE TO TRAVEL TO THE DESTINATION OF SALES ALSO. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SHE IS RUNNING HER OFFICE FROM RESID ENCE BUT ALL THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE DONE FROM THE HOUSE A ND SHE HAS TO GO OUTSIDE FOR DOING BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. FOR VISITING SUCH PLACES THE ASSESSEE USING HER OWN CAR. THE EXPENSES RELATING T O THAT ARE DEBITED TO THE P & L A/C. THE A.O. NOTED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT FOR THIS EXPENSES. IN THE ABSENCE OF COPY O F THE ACCOUNT AND OBSERVATION OF THE A.O, IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO JUSTIFY CLAIM OF ALL THE EXPENSES DEBITED, MORE SO, SINCE A SSESSEE OWN ONLY THOSE CARS WHICH SHE USED IN THE BUSINESS AND DOES NOT OWN ANY OTHER CAR. SO THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE ALSO CANN OT BE RULED OUT. THE CLAIM WAS THEREFORE, LIMITED TO RS.1,50,000 AND RS.52,381 AND WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE DETAILS OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND STATE WHO TRAVELLED WHERE AND FOR WHAT AND JUSTIFY IF FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE COPY OF THE 4 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. ACCOUNTS WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE-4 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF R S.1,28,343. HOWEVER, NO REPLY HAVE BEEN FILED. THOUGH THE SOURC E OF PAYMENT CLAIM HAS BEEN SHOWN BUT BILLS AND EVIDENCE OF BUSI NESS USE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF R S.1,28,343 WAS DISALLOWED. 3.2. THE A.O. ON PERUSAL OF THE CHART OF THE FIXED ASSETS FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HA D MADE ADDITION OF RS.32,831 UNDER THE HEAD JEWELLERY AND RS.10,1 4,521 AND RS.5,80,417 UNDER THE HEAD CARS. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE BILLS AND SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AND CAR. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE A.O. THAT BILLS OF PURCHASE OF JEW ELLERY PURCHASED ARE MISPLACED, HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS PURCHASED THRO UGH CREDIT CARD BY THE ASSESSEE AND CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE CREDIT CARD STATEMENT. PHOTO COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE FOR THE CAR PURCHASED WAS FILED. THE A.O. ON PERUSAL OF THE CREDIT CARD STATE MENT FOUND THAT THE SAME DOES NOT SHOW ANY ENTRY OF RS.32,871 AS CLAIME D BY ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY NOR THE NARRATION IN CRED IT CARD REVEALS PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY. HENCE, INVESTMENT IN JEWELLE RY IS TREATED AS 5 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 AND ADDED I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.3. WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASE OF CAR ALSO NO SOURC E HAVE BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO SUCH ENTRY WAS FOUND I N THE BANK STATEMENT. HENCE, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDITION OF RS .16,27,809 WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE ADDITIONS WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ONLY CONFIRMED ALL THE ADDIT IONS BUT ALSO ENHANCED THE ADDITION BY RS.4,93,085 ON ACCOUNT OF REPAYMENT OF CAR LOAN TO KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK. THE APPEAL OF ASSE SSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION . 6. ON GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION OF RS.52,381 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF VEHICLE RUN NING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COP Y OF THE ACCOUNT FOR THESE EXPENSES BEFORE THE A.O. THE A.O. ALSO NO TED THAT SINCE CAR 6 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. HAS BEEN USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE AS WELL, THEREFO RE, PERSONAL USE OF THE CAR CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.2, 02,381 ON RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE VEHICLES, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE RUN ATLEAST 300 KM PER DAY. THE LD. CIT(A) THE REFORE, FOUND THAT EITHER THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN USED AS CLAIMED OR SALE PRICE OF THE VEHICLE IS BOGUS. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY, CONFI RMED THE ADDITION. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THA T IT IS AN ADHOC ADDITION. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. HAS GIVEN SPECIF IC FINDING THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THESE EXPENSES AND HAS NOT JUSTIFIED THAT ENTIRE EXPENDITURE HAVING USED F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT IF THE TOT AL CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED, THEN THE VEHICLE MUST HAVE BEEN USED EXCESSIVELY ATLEAST FOR 300 KM PER DAY. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE I.E., CONSULTANCY SERVICES CARRIED OUT FRO M THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING PART OF THE EXPENDITURE. GROUND NO.2 HAS NO MERIT AND TH E SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. 8. ON GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION OF RS.1,28,341 ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE SPECIFIC REPLY BEFORE A.O. AS PER HIS QUERY. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS USE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMI TTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS VISITED DUBAI AND THE ENTI RE EXPENDITURE PERTAINS TO HER DUBAI VISIT. IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSE SSEE HAD NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN DUBAI AND DID NOT PRODUCE AN Y EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL BEFORE A.O. TO SHOW THAT EXPENDITURE WAS I NCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO J USTIFY THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THERE WERE NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. FURTHER, IT WAS FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE WAS WORKING FOR AN AMERICAN PRINCIPAL AND HAD NO BUSINESS INTEREST IN DUBAI. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS COULD NOT SATISFY AS TO WHAT BUSINESS PURPOSE HAVE BEEN SERVED BY VISITING DUBAI. IT WOULD THEREFORE, SHOW THAT IT WA S A PERSONAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE FOR VISITING DUBAI WHICH HAVE BEEN WRONGLY CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. NO INTERFE RENCE IS CALLED 8 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. FOR IN THE MATTER. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS A CCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. ON GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY A ND TWO CARS RESPECTIVELY FOR ENHANCEMENT FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN TO KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK. THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE CREDIT CARD STATEMENT DID NOT SHOW ANY ENTRY OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY. SIMILA RLY, WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM OF PURCHASE OF CARS ALSO NO SOURCE HAS BEE N SHOWN BY ASSESSEE AND NO SUCH ENTRY WAS APPEARING IN THE BAN K STATEMENT. THE A.O. THEREFORE, ADDED RS.16,27,809 UNDER SECTIO N 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS.32,871 ON PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY WAS NOT FOUND INCLUDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 9.1. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB-43 WHICH IS BANK STATEMENT OF CITI BANK TO SHOW THE EN TRY OF RS.32,871 THROUGH CARD. IT IS AN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, THIS NEEDS VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE A.O. I, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THI S ISSUE TO THE FILE OF A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE BY VE RIFYING THE FACT OF 9 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. PAYMENT THROUGH BANK STATEMENT OF CITI BANK. ASSESS EE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE COPY OF THIS BANK STATEMENT BEFORE A.O. FOR HIS VERIFICATION. THE A.O. SHALL GIVE REASONABLE, SUFFI CIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, PART OF G ROUND NO.4 OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 10. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF TWO CARS AND ENHANCEMENT OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN, T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT VEHICLES WERE PURC HASED BY TAKING LOANS FROM THE BANKS AND FROM PERSONAL SAVINGS AS W ELL AS THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF FIRST VEHICLE. THE LD. CIT( A) HOWEVER, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND ALSO ENHANCED THE ADDITION BY RS.4 ,93,085 WHICH IS SAID TO BE REPAYMENT OF LOAN TO KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SA ME. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARAS 14 TO 24 OF THE ORDER ARE R EPRODUCED AS UNDER: 14. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED A LUXUR Y SEDAN IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2005 FOR RS. 6,37,279/- EX-SHOW ROOM AND CONSIDERING THE REGISTRATION AND INSURANCE CHARGES THE VEHICLE WOULD HAVE COST ABOUT RS. 7,00,000/-. FOR THIS INVE STMENT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN A LOAN OF RS. 4,50,000/- FROM K OTAK 10 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. MAHINDRA PRIME LTD., AND HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURR ED THE REST OF THE EXPENDITURE BY WITHDRAWING MONEY FROM ITS BA NK ACCOUNT WITH THE ABN AMRO BANK AND THE DETAILS OF WITHDRAWA L HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT TO BE 16/12/2005 (RS. 50,0 00/-), 26/12/2005 (RS. 1,50,000/-), 03/01/2006 (RS. 1,00,0 00/-) AND 07/01/2006 (RS. 30,000/-). IT WAS CLAIMED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,00,000/- WA S INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ON PURCHASE OF VEHICLE IN THE MONT H OF APRIL, 2005 FROM THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HER IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005 AND JANUARY, 2006. 15. THE CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT ARE ABSURD. 16. THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2 005 AND THE INSURANCE UNDER THE M.V ACT WAS TAKEN ON 13/04/ 2005. IT IS THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASE OF VEHICLE, ITS REGISTRATION WITH THE M. V. AUTHORITIE S AND INSURANCE, ETC., WAS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ON OR BEFORE 13 /04/2005. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT EITHER BEFORE THE ID. A.O. OR IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS TO SHOW THAT VEHICLE WAS SOLD TO HER WITHOUT REALIZING THE FULL PRICE AND TH E REGISTRATION 11 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. AND INSURANCE WERE ALSO GRANTED TO HER BY THE CONCE RNED PARTIES WITHOUT RECEIVING PAYMENTS. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELL ANT TO HAVE PAID FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASE OF VEHICLE FRO M THE WITHDRAWALS MADE IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005 AND JANUARY, 2006 IS CLEARLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT. 17. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT AS PER ITS OWN ADMISSION AN D A LETTER ISSUED BY THE FINANCER ON 26/10/2005 A COPY OF WHIC H WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING HA S PAID THE ENTIRE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT TO M/S. KOTAK MAHINDERA P RIMUS LTD. IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF THIS VEHICLE AND FROM THE ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS PAID TOTAL OF RS. 4.93.085/- TO M/S. KOTAK MAHINDERA PRI MUS LTD. THE APPELLANT HAS NO EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE O F THIS AMOUNT WHICH IT HAS PAID TO M/S. KOTAK MAHINDERA PR IMUS LTD. OBVIOUSLY, THIS WAS THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE A PPELLANT. 18. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AN D THE DIFFERENCE OF RS, 3,00,000/- INCURRED ON PURCHASE O F VEHICLE IN APRIL, 2005 IS CLEARLY UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE AP PELLANT. THE 12 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT BY THE ID. A.O. FOR THE PUR CHASE OF FIRST VEHICLE IS THEREFORE CORRECT AND THE SAME IS CONFIR MED, 19. FURTHER, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,93,085/- PAID TO M/S, KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD. UP TO 26/10/2005 BEING THE UNA CCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE ADDED TO ITS INCOME. THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS AMOU NT BE NOT ADDED TO ITS INCOME AND ITS INCOME BE ENHANCED UNDE R SECTION 251 (1)(A) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 THE APPELLANT FAILED T O OFFER ANY COGENT EXPLANATION EXCEPT THAT THE MATTER BEING VERY OLD S HE WAS NOT ABLE TO LOCATE THE OLD RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT NEITHER HAS ANY FORCE NOR ANY MERI T AS THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS LAUNCHED BY THE APPELLANT AGA INST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/11/2008 WAS PENDING AND IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPELLANT TO PRESERVE THE RELEVA NT RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS AS IT WAS HER OBLIGATION TO PROVE HER CLAIMS. IT IS TRITE IN LAW THAT NO ONE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OR HER OWN WRONGS OR MISTAKES. IF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE NECESSARY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT HER CLAI MS SHE IS BOUND IN LAW TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES. AS ADMITTE DLY, THE 13 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. AMOUNT OF RS. 4,93,085/- HAS BEEN PAID TO M/S. KOTA K MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD., BY 26/10/2005 THIS AMOUNT HAS TO BE AC COUNTED FOR BY THE APPELLANT AND AS APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ITS SOURCE THE SAME IS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APPELL ANT AND IS ADDED TO HER TAXABLE INCOME U/S. 251 (1 )(A) OF I.T . ACT, 1961. THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT STANDS ENHANCED TO THAT EXTENT. 20. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBSEQUENTLY PURCHASED ANOTHER V EHICLE ON 10/10/2005 ON WHICH ABOUT RS. 10,00,000/- AS STA TED BY THE APPELLANT WAS INCURRED. THE APPELLANT CLAIMS TH AT THIS WAS FINANCED BY HER OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE FIR ST VEHICLE AND THEREAFTER, TAKING A LOAN OF RS, 5,00,000/- FROM HD FC BANK WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE CORROBORATED BY A LETTER ISSU ED BY THE HDFC BANK DATED 26/12/2005. 21. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE SECOND VEHICLE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE FIRST VEHIC LE. THE SECOND VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED ON 10/10/2005 AND WAS REGISTE RED WITH THE MOTOR VEHICLE AUTHORITIES ON 15/10/2005 AS EVID ENT FROM THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED ML O. HOWEVER, ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD THE FIRST VEHICLE BEING DL3C 14 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. AQ 1269 TO M/S. VED MEDISERVE PVT. LTD. ON 18/02/20 06 AS IS EVIDENT FROM FORM 30 UNDER RULE 55 (2) & (3) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE RULES A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLA NT IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. OBVIOUSLY, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT HAVE FINANCED THE PURCHASE OF SECOND VEHICLE IN OCTOBER, 2005 FROM THE ALLEGED SALE PROCEED OF THE FIRST VEHICLE IN FE BRUARY, 2006. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPEL LANT TO SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY HER PRIOR TO THE SALE OF THE FIRST VEHICLE ON 18/02/2006. THEREF ORE, THE ADMITTED EXPENDITURE OF RS, 5,00,000/- OVER AND ABO VE THE LOAN GIVEN BY THE HDFC BANK FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE SECO ND VEHICLE IN OCTOBER, 2005 WAS FROM UNACCOUNTED SOURCES OF TH E INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 22. FURTHER, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE VEHIC LE PURCHASED BY HER IN APRIL, 2005 FOR AN EX-SHOWROOM PRICE OF RS. 6,37,279/- WAS SOLD BY HER IN .FEBRUARY, 2006 FOR R S, 6,43,000/- IS PLAIN SCANDALOUS. THE LUXURY SEDAN PU RCHASED BY THE APPELLANT IN APRIL, 2005 WAS BEING RUN FOR ABOU T 300 KMS EVERY DAY AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE EXPENDITURE CLAIME D BY THE 15 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. APPELLANT ON RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLES AN D THEREFORE, TAKING 25 WORKING DAYS IN A MONTH AND CALCULATING T HE SAME FOR ABOUT 9 MONTHS, I.E., APRIL 2005 TO FEBRUARY, 2006 THE VEHICLE WAS RUN FOR ABOUT 67,500/- KMS AND THE APPELLANT IS CLAIMING TO HAVE ACTUALLY SOLD THE VEHICLE ON A PRICE HIGHER TH AN SHE ACTUALLY PAID TO PURCHASE THE SAID VEHICLE. 23. IN VIEW OF THE APPARENT ABSURDITY OF THE CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO LEAD EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE ITS CLAIM THAT SHE HAD SOLD HER VEHICLE PURCHASED FOR RS. 6,37,2791- AFTER RUNNING THE SAME FOR 9 MONTHS AND FOR ABOUT 67,500/- KMS FOR RS. 6,43,000/-. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO LEAD ANY SUCH EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THIS T HE CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT IS CLEARLY AFTERTHOUGHT AND AN ATTEMPT TO COVER UP ITS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE SAME HAS NO FORCE OR MERIT AND IS REJECTED. 24. THERE IS, THEREFORE, NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE SECOND VEHICLE WAS FINANCE D BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE FIRST VEHIC LE AND THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 5,00,000/- INCURRED ON PURCHASE O F VEHICLE IN 16 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. OCTOBER, 2005 IS CLEARLY UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT BY THE LD. AO FOR THE P URCHASE OF FIRST VEHICLE IS THEREFORE, CORRECT AND THE SAME IS CONFI RMED. 10.1. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED S YNOPSIS ON THE ISSUE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IS EXPLAINED THROUGH SYNOPSIS. 11. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE TWO CARS PURCHASED BEFORE A.O. AND NO ENTRY WAS FOUND IN THE BANK STATEMENT TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE CAR. THERE FORE, ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 WAS MADE. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THA T ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED LUXURY SEDAN CAR IN THE M ONTH OF APRIL, 2005 FOR RS.6,37,279 EX-SHOW ROOM AND CONSIDERING T HE REGISTRATION AND INSURANCE CHARGES THE COST OF THE VEHICLE COMES TO RS.7 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN OF RS.4,50,000 FROM KOT AK MAHINDRA BANK AND ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE WITHDRAWALS. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE TO BE ABSURD BECAU SE THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2005 AND INSUR ANCE WAS TAKEN 17 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. ON 13 TH APRIL, 2005. THEREFORE, ENTIRE EXPENDITURE FOR PUR CHASE OF CAR MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE 13 TH APRIL, 2005. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW TO SHOW THAT VEHICLE WAS SOLD TO HER WITHOUT REALIZING THE FULL PRICE AND THE REGISTRATION AND INSURANCE WERE ALSO GRANTED BY THE CONCERNED PARTIES WITHOUT RECEIVING PAYMENT. THE AS SESSEE MADE CLAIM OF WITHDRAWAL IN DECEMBER, 2005 AND JANUARY, 2006 WHICH WAS FOUND AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO N OTED THAT AS PER STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE AND LETTER ISSUED BY THE FINA NCIER ON 26 TH OCTOBER, 2005, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ENTIRE OUTSTAN DING AMOUNT TO M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD., IN RESPECT OF PURC HASE OF THE VEHICLE AND FROM THE ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE IT WAS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE PAID TOTAL OF RS.4,93,085 TO M/S. KOT AK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD., AND NO SOURCE HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED. LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS SYNOPSIS SUBMITTED THA T HYUNDAI CAR WAS PURCHASED ON 13 TH APRIL, 2005 FOR RS.5,80,417 AND LOAN WAS TAKEN FROM M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD., ON 04 TH OCTOBER, 2005 FOR RS.4,50,000 AND THERE ARE WITHDRAWALS OF RS.1,4 0,000 FROM THE BANK ON 17 TH MARCH, 2015. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, CORRECTLY DID 18 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE CAR IS PURCHASED IN APRIL, 2005 BUT ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN FOR PURC HASE OF CAR IN OCTOBER, 2005. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE, WHOLLY INCORRECT AND AN AFTERTHOUGHT. NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT VEHICLE WAS SOLD TO HER WITHOUT PAYMENT. IT IS ALSO HIGHLY IMPROPER THAT SELLER WOU LD SOLD THE CAR TO ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY PAYMENT. WHEN LOAN WAS GRANTED IN OCTOBER, 2005 FOR PURCHASE OF CAR, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF P URCHASE OF CAR BY ASSESSEE IN APRIL, 2005 WITHOUT ANY PAYMENT. NO EVI DENCE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK CONNECTED WITH THE PURCHAS E OF THE CAR IN APRIL, 2005 HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN HOLD ING THAT ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASE OF CAR FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. THERE FORE, ADDITION WAS CORRECTLY MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 12.1. AS REGARDS REPAYMENT OF LOAN OF RS.4,93,085 TO M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FIL ED LETTER OF KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK TO THE ASSESSEE (PB-3) TO SHOW THAT AMOUNT HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO THEM. IN THIS LETTER, COLUMN- 4 HAVE BEEN MENTIONED CHEQUE NO. THE NEXT COLUMN-5 IS RECEIP T REFERENCE NO.. 19 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. BOTH THESE COLUMNS ARE BLANK AND HAVE NOT BEEN FILL ED-IN. HOWEVER, REST OF THE COLUMNS ARE FILLED-IN TO SHOW PAYMENT O F RS.4,93,085 ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN TO M/S. KOTAM MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD., HOWEVER, ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF R EPAYMENT OF LOAN BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT PAYMENT IS MADE FROM UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THEREFORE, ENHANCEMENT TO THE E XTENT OF RS.4,93,085 IS WHOLLY JUSTIFIED. NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. 12.2. AS REGARDS THE SECOND VEHICLE PURCHASED BY A SSESSEE OF RS.10,14,521 ON 15 TH OCTOBER, 2005, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT PART OF THE AMOUNT IS INVESTED AFTER SELLING THE FIRST V EHICLE IN FEBRUARY, 2006. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIV ED BY HER PRIOR TO THE SALE OF THE FIRST VEHICLE ON 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2006. WHATEVER PAYMENT HAVE BEEN MADE WERE FOUND TO BE FROM UNACCOUNTED SO URCE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE FOR RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF FIRST VEHICLE BECAUSE ON TRAVELLIN G EXPENSES, ASSESSEE 20 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. CLAIMED HUGE EXPENDITURE AND WOULD HAVE RUN THE VEH ICLE FOR 300 KM PER DAY AND AS SUCH VEHICLE WERE DETERIORATED AND W OULD NOT HAVE GOT SUCH PRICE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB-5 OF THE SYNOPSIS TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE SECON D VEHICLE. HOWEVER, NO SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE CASH PRIOR TO PURCHASE OF THE VEHICLE HAVE BEEN FILED AND EXPLAIN ED. IN ITS CHART THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED CERTAIN DATES OF DECEMBER, 2 005 AND JANUARY, 2006 OF PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF SECOND VEH ICLE WHICH WERE AFTER THE PURCHASE OF THE SECOND VEHICLE ON 15 TH OCTOBER, 2005. THEREFORE, WOULD NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF THE CAR. THE LD. CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE F ACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, CORRECTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF SECOND CAR PURCHASED OUT OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY. THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAI N THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF THE CAR OR REPAYMENT OF LOAN TO M/S. KO TAK MAHINDRA BANK. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,27,809 AS WELL AS IN ENHANCING TH E ADDITION OF 21 ITA.NO.3035/DEL./2017 SMT. RASHMI CHHIBBA JAUHAR, NEW DELHI. RS.4,93,084. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CON FIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, PART OF GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE DISMIS SED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 1. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 09 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASST. REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.