Sh. Ashish Goyal, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 39/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90138 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Additional evidence
• Section: 69C; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 39/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, VS THE ITO, HOUSE NO. 3539, WARD 4(1), SECTOR 38-D CHANDI GARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AMOPG0809M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.R.SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 18.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.05.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHANDIGARH DATED 01.10.2012 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND CONSID ERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. IN THE ADDITIONAL GRO UND, ASSESSEE WANTED ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND THAT NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IS BA D IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE REASONS RECORDED IN THIS CASE. 2 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND NO OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO ADMITTED THAT ASSESSE E DID NOT CHALLENGE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT EVEN BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AL SO ADMITTED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR, SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE IDENTICAL GROUND AND THE MATTER IS PENDING IN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT AS SESSEE NEVER CHALLENGED THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-C ONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHICH WERE NEVER BROUGHT ON RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE THE ISSUE IS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THAT SIMILAR GROUND HAS ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS PER SUBMISSI ON OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS N OT PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED AT THIS STAGE. THE APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCOR DINGLY, DISMISSED. 6. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IS GENERAL AND NEED N O ADJUDICATION. 7. ON GROUND NO. 2 ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,48,500/- BEING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE OUT OF THE EXPE NSES ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR OF MACHINERY. IN THE RE-ASSESSME NT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT 3 OF RS. 11,63,221/- TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR OF SHUTTERING MATERIAL OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS. 8,48,500/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS PAYABLE AS ON 31.03. 2009. THE DETAILS ARE NOTED IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT REPAIR AMOUNT WAS ALMOST SAME I.E. RS. 96,930/-, RS. 96,925/- AND RS. 96,935 /- ETC. IN EVERY MONTH WHICH CREATED DOUBT IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTICED THA T PAYMENTS ARE NOT BEING MADE EVERY MONTH TO THE LABOURERS EMPLOYE D FOR THE JOB. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FU RNISH THE DETAILS OF MATERIAL PURCHASED FOR REPAIRING OF THE SHUTTERING MATERIAL AND TO INTIMATE THE ADDRESSES OF THE LABOU RERS/PERSONS EMPLOYED. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE SAME BUT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN WERE INCOMPLETE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE WORKERS/LABOURERS FOR THEIR VERIFICATION WITH THEIR IDENTITY PROOF. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO D IRECTED TO PRODUCE THE VOUCHERS AND COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE VOUCHERS FOR VERIF ICATION OF GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. DESPITE GIVIN G TIME MANY TIMES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE VOUCHERS AND THE WORKERS FOR THEIR VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION AT T HE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, DISALLOWE D THE SUM OF RS. 8,48,500/- UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 8. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUMM ARIZED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT EXPENDITURE ON REPAIR OF SHUTTERING MATERIAL WAS 18 .24% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED. THE ASSES SING OFFICER 4 DID NOT APPRECIATE THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND ASSES SEE FILED CONFIRMATION OF THE OUTSTANDING BALANCES AND THAT T HERE ARE NO FIXED RATES OF REPAIR OF SHUTTERING MATERIAL. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN PARA 3.3 TO 3.3.4 O F THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. CO UNSEL. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : A) THE APPELLANT DERIVES INCOME FROM GIVING SHUTTERING MATERIAL ON HIRE. IT IS TOTALLY UNLIKELY THAT THE R EPAIR CHARGES EVERY MONTH ARE ALMOST SAME. B) THE ADDRESSES GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE INCOMPLETE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REQUESTED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE WORKERS FOR VERIFICATION, BUT THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED. C) THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT RATIO OF REPAIR CH ARGES OF SHUTTERING MATERIAL TO RECEIPTS RANGES BETWEEN 1 8 TO 32% IN THE CASES OF OTHER PERSONS IN THE SAME BUSINESS, BU T NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. THE REPAIR OF SHUTTERING MATERIAL WILL DEPEND ON HO W OLD THE MATERIAL IS. MOREOVER, THE CASES OF THOSE PERSON S MAY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(1) AND THE EXPENSES CL AIMED MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SCRUTINIZED. D) THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AS ON 31 ST MARCH IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IS RS. 8,48,500/-, WHICH IS ALMOST 73% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 11,63,221/-. THE OUTSTANDING AMO UNT RANGES BETWEEN RS. 60,300/- TO RS. 96.000/- IN EACH CASE. THE LABOUR PERSONS WOULD NOT LEAVE SUCH A HIGH AMOUNT OUTSTAND ING WITH ANYONE. (E) THE ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS WHOSE PAYMENTS ARE OUTSTANDING ARE GIVEN LIKE VPO KAJHERI, VPO KHARAR, VPO BALONGI, VPO KURALI ETC. KHARAR, KURALI AND BALONGI ETC ARE NOT THE KIND OF VILLAGES WHERE YOU CAN FIND A PERSON BY JUST WRITING VPO KHARAR, VPO KURALI ETC. AND YOU NEED COMPLETE A DDRESS OF THE PERSON TO LOCATE HIM. MOREOVER, NO IDENTITY PROOF LIKE PAN, ELECTION COMMISSION VOTING CARD ETC. HAS BEEN PROVI DED BY THE APPELLANT TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON. THIS RAISES A SE RIOUS DOUBT ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THESE PERSONS. 3.3.1 THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATIONS O F OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS FROM THESE PERSONS, BUT A PERUSAL OF THESE CONFIRMATIONS REVEALS THAT THREE OF THESE CERTIFICATES VIZ. THOSE OF SH. SURINDER KUMAR, SATISH KUMAR AND BALDEV SINGH SIGNED IN HIND I, APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY ONE PERSON. FIVE OF THESE CERTI FICATES CARRY THUMB IMPRESSION, BUT THE SAME ARE NOT CERTIFIED BY ANY PERSON. 5 NO IDENTITY PROOF OF ANY OF THESE PERSONS HAS BEEN PROVIDED EVEN IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT HAS A LSO NOT APPLIED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE CONFIRMATIONS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U/S 46A. BE AS IT MAY, THE CONFIRMATIONS PROVIDED DO NO T CARRY ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND SO THESE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. 3.3.2 THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT HIS A CCOUNTS ARE AUDITED IS CORRECT, BUT AUDITORS DO NOT GO INTO THE FINER DETAILS LIKE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS WHOSE PAYMENTS ARE OUTSTAND ING. 3.3.3 THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE SPECIFIC DISALLOWANCE AND NOT AN E STIMATED DISALLOWANCE. MOREOVER, IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY NEC ESSARY TO MENTION ABOUT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. 3.3.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 8,48,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF R EPAIR OF SHUTTERING MATERIAL IS UPHELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2(I) IS DISMISSED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS REFERRED TO PAPER BOOK 3 6 TO 47 WHICH ARE THE LIST OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE AMOUNT ON ACCOU NT OF SHUTTERING MATERIAL WAS PAYABLE ALONGWITH THEIR CON FIRMATIONS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL SUM DEBITED AS REPAIR OF SHUTTERING MATERIAL, SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT W AS PAYABLE ON THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE AMOUNT OF TH E SHUTTERING MATERIAL PAYABLE WAS ALSO ALMOST SAME DURING WHOLE OF THE YEAR. IT WAS NOTICED THAT PAYMENTS ARE NOT BEING MADE EVE RY MONTH TO THE LABOURERS. IT WAS, THEREFORE, FOUND THAT IT IS TOTALLY UNLIKELY THAT REPAIR CHARGES EVERY MONTH ARE ALMOST THE SAME . THE ADDRESSES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE LABOURERS WE RE INCOMPLETE AND ASSESSEE, DESPITE GIVING OPPORTUNITY , FAILED TO PRODUCE THE VOUCHERS AND THE WORKERS/LABOURERS FOR VERIFICATION 6 AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, NO COMPLETE DETAILS WERE F ILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE. 11. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON COMPARING THE SIGNATUR ES ON THE CONFIRMATIONS FOUND THAT SOME CONFIRMATIONS ARE SIG NED BY ONE PERSON AND IN OTHERS, THE CONFIRMATIONS CARRY THUMB IMPRESSION ONLY. THUS, ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE LABOURERS AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION OF THE EXPENDITURE. COPIES OF THE SAME ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WHICH CLEARLY SUPPORT T HE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT ADDRESSES OF THE LABOURE RS ARE INCOMPLETE AND MOSTLY HAVE ONLY THE THUMB IMPRESSIO N. NO VOUCHERS OF THE EXPENDITURE WERE PRODUCED BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO LABOUR/WORKERS WERE PRODUCED FOR EXA MINATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDIT URE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N OF THE EXPENDITURE, BURDEN WOULD BE ON ASSESSEE TO PROVE T HAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE ANY OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WER E JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION. THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED. 12. ON GROUND NO. 3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 20 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY ADVANCES. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED SUNDRY ADVANCE OF RS . 20 LACS IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FI LED THE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM ADVANCES HAVE BEEN RECEIVE D I.E. SHRI BACHAN SINGH IN A SUM OF RS. 7,25,000/-, SHRI KULWI NDER SINGH IN A SUM OF RS. 6,50,000/- AND SHRI BINDER SINGH IN A SUM OF RS. 6,25,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE AS SESSEE TO 7 PRODUCE ALL THE THREE PERSONS BUT ASSESSEE FAILED T O PRODUCE THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY TREATED T HE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS BECAUSE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED COULD NOT BE VERIFIED AND ADDIT ION OF RS. 20 LACS WAS ACCORDINGLY, MADE. 13. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THESE PERSONS HAVE BEEN SETTLED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND THERE ARE NIL BALANCES. THE ASSESSEE AL SO FILED AFFIDAVIT OF THESE THREE PERSONS. IT WAS ALSO STAT ED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE SUMMONED THESE PERSONS . THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS IN APPELLATE ORDER IN PARA 4.3 TO 4.4 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL. THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL ARE NOT ACCE PTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED THE APPELLANT T O PRODUCE THESE THREE PERSONS, BUT THE APPELLANT DID NOT PROD UCE THESE PERSONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATI ON. (B) AS PER THE AFFIDAVITS FILED, THESE PERSONS ARE NOT EVEN INCOME TAX ASSESSEES. THE MODE OF PAYMENT HAS NO T BEEN MENTIONED ON THEIR AFFIDAVITS, MEANING THEREBY THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN CASH. SO URCE OF INCOME GIVEN ON THESE AFFIDAVITS NEEDED TO BE VERIF IED, WHICH HAS BEEN AVOIDED BY THE APPELLANT BY NOT PRODUCING THESE PERSONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.3.1 THE ONUS WAS ON THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THES E THREE PERSONS AND THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT NOW IS THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE SUMMONED THESE PERSONS, BUT IT W AS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUMMONS THESE PER SONS, SINCE COMPLETE ADDRESSES HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APP ELLANT. FURTHER, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL AS SUPPORT ED BY THE AFFIDAVITS THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE ADJUSTED AGAINST T HE SHUTTERING RENT IS NOT CORROBORATED BY ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENC E. 4.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 20,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY ADVANCES AND HIS ACTION IN THIS REGARD IS UP HELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2(II) IS DISMISSED. 8 14. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REFERRED TO CONFI RMATION OF THESE CREDITORS FILED AT PAGES 71 TO 73 AND AFFIDAV ITS FROM PAGES 77 TO 79 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THREE PER SONS ABOVE ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE CONFIRMATION OF S HRI KULWINDER SINGH IS SIGNED IN PUNJABI AND HE IS NOT ASSESSED T O TAX. IN THE CONFIRMATION OF SHRI BACHAN SINGH AND SHRI BINDER S INGH, ONLY THUMB IMPRESSION IS APPEARING. IN THE AFFIDAVITS, NO DATE ON THE AFFIDAVIT IS APPEARING AND EVEN THE NOTARY PUBLIC W HO HAS ATTESTED THESE AFFIDAVITS, THERE IS NO DATE OF ATTE STATION. THUS, ONLY INCOMPLETE CONFIRMATIONS ARE FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE THREE PERSONS FOR EXAMINA TION BUT THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE GIVING OPPORTUNITY IN THIS REGARD , HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE ABOVE CREDITORS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND CONFIRMATION OF THE ADVANCES. THE AFFIDAVITS ARE LIKE EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF. UNLESS THE DEPONENT S ARE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CROSS-EXA MINATION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SUCH AFFIDAVITS C ANNOT BE READ IN EVIDENCE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATION IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRAN SACTION IN THE MATTER. THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 9 BHARATI PRIVATE LTD. VS CIT 111 ITR 951 HELD THAT, MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATORY LETTERS DID NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS THA T LAY ON THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO EST ABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS UNITED COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CO. P VT. LTD. 187 ITR 596 HELD THAT, MERE PRODUCTION OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS BEFORE THE ITO WOULD NOT BY ITSELF PROVE THAT THE LOANS HA VE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THOSE LOAN CREDITORS OR THAT THEY HAV E CREDIT WORTHINESS. 17. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROV E THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT BECAUSE ASSESSEE FAILED T O PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 18. ON GROUND NO. 4 ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN ONLY RS. 5,045/- AS ON 25.03.2009. THROUGH OUT THE YEAR, NO WITHDRAWAL S FOR THE PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS UNMARRIED AND LIVING WITH THE PARENTS. SO, THERE WAS NO WITHDRAWAL MADE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, ESTIMATED THE EXPENDITURE AT RS. 5 ,000/- PER MONTH AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/-. 10 19. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE ALSO MADE W ITHDRAWALS BUT HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE BECAUSE WHEN ASSESSEE HIMSELF WAS EARNING INCOME, S O HE WOULD LIKE TO SPEND HIS OWN EARNING AND ACCORDINGLY, CONF IRMED THE ADDITION. 20. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. IT IS NOT IN DISPU TE THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE YEAR HAS NOT MADE ANY WITHDRAW ALS AND THE ASSESSEE IS EARNING HAND. THEREFORE, IT IS UNBELIE VABLE THAT A PERSON WHO IS HAVING INCOME WOULD NOT SPEND ANYTHIN G UPON HIM FOR MEETING OUT PERSONAL EXPENDITURE. THE COND UCT OF THE ASSESSEE SPEAKS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND AS SUCH, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. THIS GRO UND IS, ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 21. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH MAY,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH MAY,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH