Mr Vidit Jain, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3075/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3105 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IT WAS SHRI PRADEEP DINODI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Difference of opinion
• Section: 131; 68; 69

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH - SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3075/DEL/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI VIDIT JAIN, 26, FRIENDS COLONY WEST NEW DELHI 110 065 PAN AALPJ7086J VS. ITO WARD-14 (1) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 7 DELHI DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2015 FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,72,236/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 6,92,424/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORD ED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN INCOME UNDER DIFFERE NT HEADS I.E SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ON PERUSAL OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE IT WAS ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRADEEP DINODIA AND SHRI R.K. KAPOOR, CA DEPARTMENT BY: MS. BEDOBANI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 03//05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23/05/2017 ITA NO. 3075/DEL/2015 MR. VIDIT JAIN VS. ITO PAGE 2 OF 10 OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 32 ,87,690/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS D EPOSITED CASH OUT OF OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 2,15,454/- AND CASH WITHD RAWALS FROM BANKS ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, RENTAL INCOME AND GIFTS REC EIVED DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS REGULARL Y WITHDRAWING CASH AND DEPOSITING THE SAME ON THE ADVICE OF HIS REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS M/S RISHTA, REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI FOR WHICH CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO FILED. FURTHER ON THE ISSUE OF REGARDING THE OPENIN G CASH BALANCE IN HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE NOR ANY EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM REGARDING HOLDING OPENING CASH IN HAND. FURTHER ON THE ISSUE REGARDING RECEIPT OF GIFTS IN CASH, ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF TOTAL GIFTS OF RS. 7,70,000/- SHRI SUBHASH CHAND RA SANGHAI AND MS. KIRAN SANGHAI HAVE GIFTED RS. 2,51,000/- EACH IN CA SH ON THE OCCASION OF BIRTHDAY CEREMONY OF HIS SON. IN SUPPORT OF THE CLA IM ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF GIFT DEED PREPARED ON PLAIN PAPERS AND SI GNED BY THE ABOVE DONORS. ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO PROVE TH E CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT MAJOR AMOUNT OF GIFT AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS RS. 6,04,000/- FROM HIS IN LAWS WHO AR E NEPALI CITIZENS AND BELONGS TO ONE OF THE RENOWNED BUSINESS FAMILY OF N EPAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PROCUREMENT OF DOCUMENTS WOULD TAKE SOME TIME. ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE GIFT DEED, AND DECLARATI ON FROM CIVIL CAPITAL MARKET LIMITED AND DIVIDEND WARRANT OF NEPAL INDUST RIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. ALONGWITH COPIES OF THE PASSPORT. THE AO HOWEVER NOTED THAT MERE FILING OF DECLARATION FROM NEPAL INDUSTRIAL AN D COMMERCIAL BANK ITA NO. 3075/DEL/2015 MR. VIDIT JAIN VS. ITO PAGE 3 OF 10 LTD. WOULD NOT PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DO NORS TO GIVE ANY GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. NO COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED. THE AO THEREFORE NOTED THAT ASSESS EE WANTED TO DIVERT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. AO ALSO NOTED TH AT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE OF OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 2 ,15,454/-. AS REGARDS BANK WITHDRAWALS, IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO T DECLARED EVEN A SINGLE TRANSACTION OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISEN ON SALE AND PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SUBMI SSIONS REGARDING FREQUENT WITHDRAWALS AND SUBSEQUENTLY DEPOSITING T HE SAME AMOUNT ON THE ADVICE OF THE REAL ESTATE AGENT IS ENTIRELY BAS ELESS AND FAR FROM TRUTH. THE FACT THAT WHEN ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING CASH IN HAND OF RS. 20,15,454/- ON 29 TH APRIL, 2009, THE NECESSITY OF DIFFERENT WITHDRAWAL S WOULD NOT ARISE. FURTHER, THE SEQUENCE OF WITHDRAWA LS AND DEPOSITS OF MORE OR LESS THE SAME AMOUNT PROVE THE FACT OF ACCO MMODATION OF UNACCOUNTED CASH ENTRY IN HIS ACCOUNT FOR WHICH ASS ESSEE HAS NOTHING TO EXPLAIN. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED IN STATEMENT U/S 13 1 OF THE ACT TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. AO NOTED THAT IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE DOING THE PROPERTY TRAN SACTIONS IN CASH AND INTRODUCING UNACCOUNTED CASH ROUTING THROUGH HIS BA NKING CHANNEL AND SAME WERE NEITHER DECLARED NOR BROUGHT TO TAX BY HI M. FURTHER DESPITE OF SUCH HUGE AND FREQUENT WITHDRAWALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN NOT MADE ANY WITHDRAWAL FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2004 TO 21 ST JANUARY, 2010. THE WITHDRAWALS ON HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ARE MADE FOR RS. 5,000/-, RS.10,000/- AND RS. 1,31,545/- ONLY IN DECEMBER, 20 09, JANUARY 2010 ITA NO. 3075/DEL/2015 MR. VIDIT JAIN VS. ITO PAGE 4 OF 10 AND MARCH, 2010. THE AO FURTHER NOTED REGARDING THE GIFT STATED TO BE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHETHER DONORS WERE HOLDING HUGE CASH IN HAND WHILE COMING FROM NE PAL TO INDIA, WHETHER THE AIRPORT AUTHORITIES HAD PERMITTED THEM TO CARRY HUGE CASH WITH THEM OR ANY DECLARATION MADE ON THIS BEHALF, A NY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR PAYMENT ON TRAVEL TICKETS ETC. AND FURT HER WHY BANKING CHANNEL WAS NOT USED FOR MAKING THE GIFT. THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN AN Y OF THE QUERY RAISED BY HIM AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE ON RECORD, AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANCE THE CASH DE POSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE SAME WAS THEREFORE TREATED AS UNEXPLAI NED CASH DEPOSITS U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDITION OF RS. 32,87,69 0/- WAS MADE. ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE GIFT WAS RECEIVED FROM IN LAW S AND THAT SECTION 68 WOULD NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THE WITHD RAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE TO MAKE REDEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER GIVEN BENEFIT OF ASSESSEE OF OP ENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 2,15,454/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,72,236/- . 3. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, FOR MAKING CASH DEPOS IT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, ADDITION CAN NOT BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T . ACT. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT DISPUTE THAT ADDITION COULD BE MADE U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT ITA NO. 3075/DEL/2015 MR. VIDIT JAIN VS. ITO PAGE 5 OF 10 REGARDING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE BANK ACCOUN T. HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAUHARI MAL GOEL 201 CTR 54 HELD THAT DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WOULD AMOUNT TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, MERE LY MENTIONING SECTION 68 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICAN T, THEREFORE THIS ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED GIFT OF RS. 7,70,000/- WHICH ARE FROM FAT HER IN LAW, MOTHER IN LAW, WIFES SISTERS HUSBAND AND WIFES SISTER ALON GWITH MISCELLANEOUS GIFTS. IN SUPPORT OF GIFTS THE COPIES OF THE GIFTS DECLARATION HAVE BEEN FILED. COPIES OF THE SAME ARE ALSO FILED IN THE PA PER BOOK. HOWEVER MERE FILLING OF GIFT DECLARATION ARE NOT ENOUGH TO ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF GIFT IN THE MATTER. GIFTS ARE MADE I N CASH AND SOURCE OF THE CASH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. NO EVIDENCE OF HOW C ASH WAS BROUGHT FROM NEPAL TO INDIA HAVE BEEN FILED. NO DETAILS OF CASH BROUGHT TO HIM HAVE BEEN PROVED. NO EVIDENCES OF BIRTHDAY CEREMONY HAVE BEEN FILED ON RECORD. HOW MUCH EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY ASSESSEE ON BIRTHDAY CEREMONY HAVE NOT BEEN FILED. NO EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF THE DONORS IN INDIA HAVE BEEN PROVED. THUS ASSESSEE F AILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS AND GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTIONS IN THE MATTER. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATI PRIVATE LIMITED. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL I, CALCUTTA. 111 ITR 951 AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. V. UNITED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CO. PVT. LIMITED. 187 ITR 596 HELD THAT MERE FILING OF ITA NO. 3075/DEL/2015 MR. VIDIT JAIN VS. ITO PAGE 6 OF 10 CONFIRMATION IS NOT ENOUGH. EVEN IN THE GIFTS DECL ARATION NO SOURCE OF GIVEN GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MENTIONED. THUS THE COMMENTS OF ASSESSEE TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS A ND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR 292 ITR 552 HELD 'IN THE CASE OF GIFTS MERE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DONOR AND SHOWING THE MOVEMEN T OF THE GIFT AMOUNT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS IS NOT SUFFICIENT T O PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. SINCE THE CLAIM OF GIFT IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS LIES ON HIM NOT ONLY TO ESTABLISH THE IDEN TITY OF THE PERSON MAKING THE GIFT BUT ALSO HIS CAPACITY TO MAKE SUCH A GIFT. IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT: YEAR 1995-96 THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TWO GIFTS O F RS.10 LAKHS EACH FROM N. R. E. ACCOUNTS OF TWO DONORS, NAMELY V AND D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE DONORS AND HELD THAT T HE AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS WHICH HAD BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS GI FT, WAS IN FACT HIS INCOME AND ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 68. THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THIS WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT: HELD THAT TH ERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW AS TO WHAT WAS THE FINANCIAL CAPACIT Y OF THE DONORS, WHAT WAS THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE DONORS, WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP THE DONORS HAD WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHAT WERE THE SOU RCES OF FUNDS GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER THEY HAD THE CA PACITY OF GIVING LARGE AMOUNTS OF GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED ITA NO. 3075/DEL/2015 MR. VIDIT JAIN VS. ITO PAGE 7 OF 10 TO APPEAR IN PERSON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, B UT NEVER APPEARED. THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS JUSTIFIED. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P. MOHANKALA 291 ITR 278 HELD ' THE ASSESSEE RECE I VED FOREIGN GIFTS FROM ONE COMMO N D ONO R . THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THEM BY INSTRUMEN TS ISS U E D BY F O REI G N BANKS AND CREDITED TO THE R E SPECTIVE AC C OUNT OF T HE A SSESSEES BY N EGOTIATION THROUGH A BANK IN INDIA. MOST OF THE C HEQUES SENT F R OM ABOARD WERE DRAWN ON THE CITTBANK, N. A. S I N GA P O RE . THE EVIDEN C E I NDICATED THAT THE DONOR WAS TO RECEIVE SU IT ABL E C OMPENSATION FRO M THE ASSESSEES. ON THIS MATERIAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER H ELD THAT THE GIFTS THOUGH APPARENT WERE NOT REAL AND ACCORDINGLY TREAT ED ALL THOSE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEES AS THEIR INCOME APPLYING SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEES DID NOT CONTEND THAT EVEN IF THEIR EXPLAN ATION WAS NOT SATISFACTORY THE AMOUNTS WERE NOT OF THE NATURE OF INCOME. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE TWO M EMBERS OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND THE MATER WAS REFERRED TO TH E VICE PRESIDENT WHO CONCURRED WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). ON APPEAL THE HIGH COURT RE- APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE AND SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN FI NDINGS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE TRI BUNAL WERE IN THE REALM OF SURMISES, CONJECTURE AND SUSPICION. ON APP EAL TO THE SUPREME ITA NO. 3075/DEL/2015 MR. VIDIT JAIN VS. ITO PAGE 8 OF 10 COURT: HELD, REVERSING THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT, THAT FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND T HE TRIBUNAL WERE BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND NOT ON ANY CONJ ECTURES AND SURMISES. THAT THE MONEY CAME BY WAY OF BANK CHEQUE S AND WAS PAID THROUGH THE PROCESS OF BANKING TRANSACTION WAS NOT BY ITSELF OF ANY CONSEQUENCE. HE HIGH COURT MISDIRECTED ITSELF AND E RRED IN DISTURBING THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT.' HON'B1C PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF YASH PAL GOEL VS CIT 310 ITR 75 HELD TH AT 'HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL THAT THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF M. SUGGES TED THAT HE NEITHER HAD THE CAPACITY TO MAKE THE GIFT NOR THE SOURCE FROM W HERE THE GIFT WAS MADE. NO REASON WHATSOEVER HAD BEEN ASSIGNED FOR GI FTING SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT BY M TO THE ASSESSEE. M NEVER VISITED THE HO ME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THERE WAS NO LOVE AND AFFECTION. IT WAS N OTHING BUT A SUBTERFUGE TO AVOID INCOME-TAX. THE TRANSACTIONS WE RE NOT GENUINE ONES'. 6. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CL EAR THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TH E GIFTS IN THE MATTER. MERE FILING OF GIFTS DECLARATION IS NOT ENOUGH TO P ROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS IN THE MATTER. ASSESSEE THEREFORE FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS IN THE MATTER. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE GIFTS TO BE NOT GENUINE. NO INTERFEREN CE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. ITA NO. 3075/DEL/2015 MR. VIDIT JAIN VS. ITO PAGE 9 OF 10 6.1. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THA T ASSESSEE HAS MADE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE FOR MAKING REDEPOSIT. HE HAD RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MRS. DEEPALI SEH GAL 2014-TIOL-1055- ITAT-DEL IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT HE AO COULD NOT BRING OUT ANY FACT THAT CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM SAVING ACCOUNT AND PARTNE RSHIP OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT WAS USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES ANYWHERE ELSE, THEN, MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME GAP BETWEEN WITHDRAWAL OF CASH AND ITS FURTHER DEPOSIT TO THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE AMOUNT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S 69 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT AT PAGES 51 TO 62 OF THE PAPER BOOK. PAGE 54 DISCLOSES THAT ON 27 TH APRIL, 2009 THERE IS A DEPOSIT OF RS. 20 LACS WHICH HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN LA TER ON SELF OR GOPAL. BUT OTHER ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT MOST OF THE SAME ARE TRANSFERRED ENTRIES OR THROUGH RTGS. ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE ANY CO RELATION OF CA SH WITHDRAWAL WITH THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN PETTY HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. THE AO HAS ALSO NOTED THAT A SSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY WITHDRAWALS FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2004 TO 21 ST JANUARY, 2010. THIS FACT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT NO SUFFICIENT CASH WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO REDEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE STORY PROPOUNDED BY THE ASSESSEE OF C ASH WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITING THE SAME WAS DONE AT THE ADVICE OF R EAL ESTATE CONSULTANT WAS NOT PROVED THROUGH ANY RELIABLE AND COGENT EVIDENCE ITA NO. 3075/DEL/2015 MR. VIDIT JAIN VS. ITO PAGE 10 OF 10 BECAUSE THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT DECLARED EVEN A SINGLE TRANSACTION OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISES O N SALE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR OTHERWI SE. THEREFORE THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MRS. DEEPALI SEHGA L (SUPRA) WOULD NOT ADVANCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE FACTS ARE S UFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT WHATEVER EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE EXP LANATION OF ASSESSEE DO NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE OF THIS BENCH TO ACCEPT T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED BY LD . COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF ASSE SSEE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23. 5.2017 *VEENA* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. PRINCIPAL CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR