Mr. K.S. Rana, Advocate, Kullu V. ITO, Kullu

ITA 351/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 35121514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL BATRA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment
• Section: 148; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 351/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) MR.K.S. RANA, ADVOCATE, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DISTRICT COURT, KULLU, H.P. DISTT. KULLU, HIMAHCAL PRADESH. PAN: ACPPR0395C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL BATRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.06.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS), SHIMLA DATED 8.1.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD, AGAINST FACTS AND LAW. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD AND IN U PHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- BEING INVESTMENT IN FDR PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT RELATIN G TO THE HINDU 2 UNDIVIDED FAMILY. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT BE ACCEPT ED AND THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 3. THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,594/- EARNED BY INTEREST ON FDRS RELATING TO THE HUF. THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (IN SHORT THE AC T) WAS ISSUED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NET INCOME OF RS.1,35,51 0/- PLUS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.75,000/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE DETAILS AND PARTICULARS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED AND EXAMINED. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM PR OFESSION AS AN ADVOCATE IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE HAS STATED VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 5.6.2008 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ONLY INTEREST INCOME OF RS.13 ,104/- ON 17.4.2006 ON THE FDR OF RS.1 LAC PURCHASED ON 17.4. 2002 WHICH RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE 2007-08. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO OTHER INTEREST WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE TDS CERTIFICATE DATED 31.3.2006 ISSU ED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, NOTICED THAT THE INTEREST AMOU NTING TO RS.35,521/- HAS BEEN CREDITED TO HIS FDR ACCOUNT AN D TDS HAS BEEN MADE ON THE ABOVE INTEREST INCOME BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIED HAVING RECEIPT OF SUCH INTEREST INCOME ON THE FDRS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INFORMAT ION 3 UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CALLED FOR FROM THE STATE BANK OF INDIA BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO H AVE SUPPLIED INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING TWO STDRS WITH STATE BANK OF IND IA, KULLU I.E (I) RS.1 LAC PURCHASED ON 17.4.2003 AND (II) RS .5 LACS, DATE OF PURCHASE 28.5.2005. THE INTEREST ACCRUED FOR T HE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON BOTH THESE STDRS WAS RS.6964/- AND RS.24,630/- RESPECTIVELY. ON THE FDR OF RS.5 LAC, TDS OF RS.3,623/- WAS ALSO MADE ON THE INTEREST ACCRUED. THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF INVESTMENT OF RS.5 LACS MADE IN THE STDR WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA ON 28.5.2005 ALONGWITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REPLY SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE INVESTED RS.5 LACS IN SBI, KULL U WHICH PERTAINING TO THE RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FR OM HUF ASSETS SETTLED BETWEEN THE BROTHERS WHO ARE BASICAL LY AGRICULTURISTS. THE ORIGINAL RECORD IS NOT AVAIL ABLE AT THIS STAGE AS THE BANK ADVISED AGAIN FOR EXTENSION OF TH E STDRS. AS REGARDS THE INTEREST, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNDER IMPRESSION THAT ON MATURITY HE IS TO DISCLOSE THE DEPOSITS. THE STDR OF RS.5 LACS IS STILL LYIN G WITH THE BANK AND NOT ENCASHED TILL DATE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER AGAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.5 LACS AND CO PY OF THE SETTLEMENT PAPERS. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUB MISSION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THEREIN THAT A S PER THE FAMILY SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE BROTHERS, HUF ASSETS ESPECIALLY REGARDING THE ORCHARDS AND AGRICULTURAL LAND AN 4 AMOUNT OF RS.5 LACS WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BE ING HUF RECEIPTS WHICH WERE DEPOSITED AS FDR WITH SBI, KULL U ON 28.5.2005. THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE BROTHERS CO ULD BE FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ASKED THE ASSE SSEE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR RECEIPT OF RS.5 LA CS FROM HIS BROTHERS AND COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM WHERE THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT WA S PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED FAMILY SETTLEME NT DATED 14.3.2005 ON THE PLAIN PAPER (PB-12), WHICH IS REPR ODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT AF TER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS .5 LACS AFTER MAKING COLLECTION BY ALL THE BROTHERS WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS NO D IVISION OF THE PROPERTY BY ALL FOUR BROTHERS. THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO TH E FOLLOWING REASONS : I) IN THE ABOVE FAMILY SETTLEMENT IT HAS BEEN STATED THA T THE THREE BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. SH DHIAN SINGH, HIRA SING H AND CHET RAM HAVE COLLECTED RS. 500000/- AND GIVEN TO THEIR ELDER BROTHER SH. K.S. RANA. THE SHARE OF EACH BROTHERS WORKS OUT TO RS. 1,66,666/- BUT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF BANK ACCOUNTS FROM WHERE THE BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE WIT HDRAWN THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT HAS BEEN PRODUCED. II) IN THE LAST TWO LINES OF THE FAMILY SETTLEMENT, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE INHERITATED LAND HAS NOT BEEN DIVIDED AMONG THE BROTHERS TILL DATE. IF THE LAND HAS NOT BEEN DIVIDED AMONG THE BROTHERS TILL DATE AND JOINTLY CULTIVATING THE SAME THEN WHO IS TH E KARTA OF THE HUF ALSO NOT STATED. BUT THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY SH OWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THIS GOE S TO PROVE THAT DIVISION OF LAND HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN PLACE. 5 III) DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSE E HAS NEVER STATED THAT HE HAS FDR OF RS. 500000/- INVESTED OUT O F THE HUF FUND RECEIVED FROM HIS BROTHERS. IV) DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF JAMABANDI OF AGRICULTURE LAND AS WELL AS ORCHARD ISSUED BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT O 03-07-2005 WHEREIN IT H AS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS THREE BROT HERS HAVING EQUAL SHARES OWNED TOTAL AND AT 33 BIGHAS AND 17 BIS WAS OF AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED AT PHATTI BAHU PARGANA KOT HI TALOKAPUR TEHSIL BANJAR DISTRICT- KULLU AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE CO MES TO 8.10 BIGHAS (1/4 SHARE) IN THE SAID AGRICULTURE LAND. IN THE ABOVE SAID JAMABANDI TOTAL LAND UNDER APPLE ORCHARD HAS BEE N SHOWN AT 10 BIGHA AT 4 BISWA ONLY AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE COMES TO 2 BIGHA 11 BISWA ONLY. THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY DISCLOS ING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE FOLLOWING YEARS AS UNDER:- SR. NO. FINANCIAL YEAR NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME 1. 1999-2000 50000 2. 2000-2001 40000 3. 2003-2004 70000 4. 2004-2005 80000 5. 2005-2006 70000 DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED IN HIS RE TURN OF INCOME NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 75000/ AFTER CLAIMING EXPEN SES INCURRED FOR EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT HE OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND ORCHARD MEASUR ING 10 BIGHAS. THE ABOVE STATED FACTS GOES TO PROVE THAT THE SETTLE MENT OF ANCESTRAL ASSETS HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN PLACE AND THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OUT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON THE ABOVE SAID AGRICUL TURAL LAND AND DISCLOSING AGRICULTURAL INCOME EVERY YEAR. V) THE ASSESSEE IS 63 YEARS OLD AND HIS WIFE HAS ALS O BEEN RETIRED FROM GOVERNMENT SERVICE AND RESIDING SEPARATELY AT KULLU. AS SUCH IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE FAMILY SETTLEMENT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN PL ACE TILL 2005. 6 VI) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E IN THE SHAPE OF SETTLEMENT DEED PREPARED IN THE ON A JUDICIAL PAPER IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES AND MODE OF RECEIPT OF SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHERE THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN W ITHDRAWN BY THE BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE. VII) IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT A PERSON WHO IS AN ADVOC ATE BY PROFESSION AND PRACTICING IN CIVIL COURT HAS NOT PREPARED THE FAMI LY SETTLEMENT PAPERS IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO WITNESSES. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO THE ABOVE REASONS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SETTLE MENT AMOUNT FROM HIS BROTHERS AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH SUPPORTING DOCU MENTS. THUS HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN FDR HELD BY HIM IN T HE STATE BANK OF INDIA, KULLU FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCES O F INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS WAS MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS PER THE INFORMATION CALLED FROM THE STA TE BANK OF INDIA, KULLU UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT ALSO H ELD THAT THE INTEREST WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TWO FDRS A MOUNTING TO RS.31,594/-, WHICH WAS PAID/ACCRUED ON THE ABOVE FDRS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.31,594/- ON ACC OUNT OF INTEREST EARNED ON THE FDRS WAS ALSO MADE. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED BOTH THE ADDITIONS BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE, MORE OR LESS, MADE SIMILAR SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE MADE BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND NOT MAINTAINING ANY BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE SUMMON ED ALL THE BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE IF HE WAS NOT SATISFIE D. IT WAS 7 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS WELL AS IN THE CAPACITY OF H UF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE DIVISI ON OF HUF LAND HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT IT WAS NOT MANDATORY TO EXECUTE FAMILY SETTLEMENT ON A JUD ICIAL PAPER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FDR WAS PREPARED OUT OF HUF FUNDS AND PERTAINED TO SMALLER HUF CONSI STING OF ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE AND SON. THEREFORE, THE AMOUN T OF FDR AND INTEREST DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS I NDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT DEED, ETC. AND NO EVIDENCE WAS PR ODUCED OF RECEIVING ANY PAYMENTS FROM HIS BROTHERS. SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF I NVESTMENT IN THE FDRS AND ALSO FAILED TO DISCHARGE PRIMARY ON US ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN FDRS, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN FDRS WAS FROM AGRI CULTURAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM HUF. THE FDRS DID NOT BELON G TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND INTEREST WA S ALSO NOT RECEIVED IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THEREFORE, T HE ADDITIONS ARE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R FOR THE REVE NUE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED 8 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE GIVEN THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESS EE AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO HUF. THEREFO RE, THE ADDITIONS ARE WHOLLY JUSTIFIED. 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN T HIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS .1,35,510/- ALONGWITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.75,000/-. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.13,104/- ON FDR OF R S.1 LAC. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO OTHER INTERE ST WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE TDS CERTIFICATE DATED 31.3.2006 ISSU ED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA FOUND THAT INTEREST AMOUNTING T O RS.35,521/- HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE FDR ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND TDS HAS BEEN MADE ON THE ABOVE INTERES T INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DENIED AT ASSESSMENT STAGE H AVING RECEIVED ANY SUCH INTEREST INCOME ON FDR. THEREFO RE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INVESTMEN T IN FDR OF RS.5 LACS MADE WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, KULLU A ND RECEIPT OF INTEREST FROM THE SAME FDR AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THIS FACT TO THE A SSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF DECLARING CORRECT FACTS AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE DENIED HAVING RECEIVED ANY SUCH INTEREST INCO ME ON FDR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, CALLED FOR THE INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM ST ATE BANK OF INDIA, KULLU WHO HAVE REPORTED TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT 9 THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING TO FDRS OF RS.1 LAC AND RS.5 LACS WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, KULLU ON WHICH INTEREST ALSO ACCRUED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ON THE FDR OF RS.5 LACS THE TDS WAS ALSO DEDUCTED ON INTEREST ACCRUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, SHOW THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO DISCLOSE THE INVESTMENT IN THE FDR TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO HAVING NO INTENTION TO DISCLOSE THE INTEREST ON SUCH FDR TO T HE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. RATHER THE ASSESSEE DENIED MAKING ANY FDR OR RECEIVING ANY INTEREST FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA, KU LLU. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH ALL THESE FACTS, A INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND THE A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE FDR OF RS.5 LACS WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE F OR THE FIRST TIME CAME WITH VAGUE REPLY THAT HE MIGHT HAVE INVESTED RS.5 LACS IN STATE BANK OF INDIA, KULLU, WHICH PERT AINED TO THE RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM HUF ASSETS. N O OTHER INFORMATION WAS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN DIRECTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN FDR, THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT RS.5 LACS WERE RECEIVED AS PER FAMILY SETTLEMENT WI TH HIS BROTHERS. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A COPY OF THE FA MILY SETTLEMENT, WHICH IS WRITTEN ON A PLAIN PAPER, IN W HICH IT WAS STATED THAT RS.5 LACS WERE GIVEN BY THE BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIM EARNED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF HUF AND NO DIVISION OF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN MADE AFTE R THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D GIVEN 7 10 REASONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR NOT ACCEPTING T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED A BOVE. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSIDER ING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , IT IS CLEAR THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FILED FROM WHERE T HE BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE GIVEN CASH AMOUNT OF RS.5 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISBE LIEVED THE HUF PROPERTY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY SHO WING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. FURT HER, THE ASSESSEE NEVER STATED THAT HE MADE FDR OF RS.5 LACS OUT OF THE HUF FUNDS. NO SOURCE OF HUF FUNDS WAS ALSO FIL ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE LANDHOLDING WAS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS AND THE ASSE SSEE WAS SHOWING REGULAR AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN O F INCOME. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF CONSIDERING THE HUF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR GIVING ANY AMOUNT TO THE ASSE SSEE. THE SETTLEMENT PAPER FILED ON PLAIN PAPER WAS ALSO DOUB TFUL AND DID NOT PROVE ANYTHING IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROV E THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE FDR OF RS.5 LACS TO THE SA TISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SINCE THE FDR OF RS.5 LACS WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS WAS INFORMED BY THE STATE B ANK OF INDIA, KULLU UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, THERE FORE, ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE IN VESTMENT IN SUCH FDR. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT THE A SSESSEE INITIALLY DENIED THE INVESTMENT IN FDR OF RS.5 LAC S BUT LATER ON FILED VAGUE REPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE 11 ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE INVESTED RS.5 LACS IN FDR OUT O F THE RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM HUF ASSETS. T HUS, THE BURDEN UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN FDR WAS NOT PROVED AT ALL. EVEN BEF ORE ME, N O EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF F DR OF RS.5 LACS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PR OVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF HIS BROTHERS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE INVES TMENT IN FDR OF RS.5 LACS, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIF IED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.5 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PROV E THAT THE FDR WAS PREPARED OUT OF HUF FUNDS. THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRADICTORY AND FALSIFYING BY THE INF ORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE BANK BECAUSE FDR WAS IN INDIVIDUAL NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE INTEREST ON FDR WAS ALSO CREDI TED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.5 LAC S ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FDR AND ALSO O F RS.31,594/- FOR INTEREST ON SUCH FDR. THE THEORY OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HUF IN FDR AS PROPOUNDED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVED THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE OR MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES 12 BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING BOTH THE ADDITIONS A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MAT TER. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25 TH JUNE, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH