Prashant Gupta (HUF), Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3869/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3378 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTOSH AGGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BEDOBANI CHAUDHURI
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3869/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PRASHANT GUPTA (HUF) PROP. M/S. PRAGATI INORGANICS, FLAT NO.513-14, ASHISH CORPORATE TOWER, COMMUNITY CENTRE, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI. PAN: AAFHP 4135C VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SANTOSH AGGARWAL, ADV ., ASSESSEE(S) BY : MS. BEDOBANI CHAUDHURI, SR.D.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 29/03/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/04/2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER O F LEARNED CIT(A)- XIX, NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 28.04.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN HUF AND CARRYING THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING AND SELLING OF CHEMICALS. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILE D DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.19,77,490/-. THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 UNDER SECTION 143(3)/254 OF THE ACT ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS. 25 ,48,540/- BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ONE SMT. GEETA JAYANTILAL SURU UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) VIDE I MPUGNED ORDER DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3869/DEL/2016 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME AND HAS RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS)-19, NEW DELHI 28.04.2016, THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IS WRONG ON FACTS A ND BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.500000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3 THAT THE CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND/OR COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) ARE BASED ON SUSPICIONS, CONJ ECTURES, SURMISES AND EXTRANEOUS AND IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS. 4. THAT THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWE D AND THE ORDER(S) OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND/OR COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY KINDL Y BE QUASHED, SET ASIDE, ANNULLED OR MODIFIED. 5. THAT THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 4. THE LD. AR ASSAILING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE FULL PARTICULARS OF SMT. GEETA JAYANTILAL SURU WITH ADDRESS, PAN, BANK CONFIRMATION, RETURN OF INC OME, COPY OF SAVING BANK ACCOUNT ETC. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE LOAN WAS REPAID ON 17.01.2010. HE ARGUED THAT IF THE AO WAS NOT SATISF IED WITH THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, HE OUGHT TO HAVE ISSUED SUMM ONS UNDER SECTION 131 TO THE CREDITOR. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW TO PRODUCE THE CREDITOR FOR PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT W.R.T CREDITS R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF YEAR, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PRO VE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, I T HAS FAILED TO SHOW THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CR EDITOR. SMT. GEETA, FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE AFORESAID AMOUN T HAD DECLARED A ITA NO.3869/DEL/2016 3 TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,95,071/- DURING THE RELEVANT A.Y. THE BANK STATEMENTS ALSO SHOW AN AVERAGE BALANCE BETWEEN RS. 8,000 TO RS. 10,000/- ONLY DURING THE ENTIRE YEAR. THE DEPOSIT O F CASH O F RS. 5 LACS WHEN THE BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. GEETA WAS ONLY RS.847/- AND ALSO THE FACT THAT ON NEXT DAY, A CHEQUE OF RS. 5 LACS WAS ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE GOES TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSA CTION WAS NOT GENUINE. THE CREDITOR WAS NOT FINANCIALLY CAPABLE T O HAVE SUDDENLY EARN SUCH AN AMOUNT. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SMT. GEETA FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE AO TO P R OVE HIS CASE. THE ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISCHARGED. THE JUDGMENTS RELIED U PON BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS AS THE FACTUAL SCENARIO DEPICTED ABOVE LEAVES NO MANNER OF DOUBT THAT THE TRANSACTIO N OF RS. 5 LACS WAS HIT BY SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY 06 TH APRIL, 2017 SD/- (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 06/04/2017 PRABHAT KUMAR KESARWANI, SR.P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT AS SISTANT REGISTRAR