SMT. SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 398/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6170 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Gift; Depreciation; Question of law; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 133(6); 143(1); 195; 143(2); 13; 153; 147; 131; 68; 69; 148; 11

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES B JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 SHEELA YOGI, 201, VIJAY LAXMI TOWER, CENTRAL SPINE, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. ITO, WARD-4(2), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ABTPY9381L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. VEDANT AGARWAL (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09/11/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/02/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 22.01.2018 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW ALSO LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 62. 2(I) ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW ALSO LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN INITIATING REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 2 (II) ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW ALSO LD. AO GROSSLY ERRED IN INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS ON BORROWED SATISFACTION ONLY. 3. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LA W ALSO LD LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING AND CONFI RMING A HUGE ADDITION OF RS. 45,33,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BY ADDING ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES HAS FAILED IN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ENTIRE DETAIL REGARDING ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WAS SUB MITTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND LD. AO HAS NOT POINTED A NY DEFECT IN THE SAME. 4. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LA W ALSO LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING AND CONFI RMING ADDING OF RS.8,02,000/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY ADDIN G THE CASH GIFT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM RELATIVES DESPITE OF THE FACT THAT COMPLETE EVIDENCE OF GIFT RECEIVED WAS SUBMITTED DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW ALSO LD. AO GROSSLY ERRED IN FINALIZING THE REASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS WITHOUT ISSUING AND SERVING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE DOESNT WANT TO PRESS GROUND NO. 1, 2 AND 5. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. REGARDING GROUND NO. 3 AND 4, THE LD AR SUBMITTE D THAT THE LD. AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 53,35,000/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY TREATING ADVANCES AND GIFTS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CRE DITS VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2015. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION V IDE ORDER DATED ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 3 22.01.2018. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND MEAS URING 1.8125 HECTARES SITUATED AT VILLAGE GHEGHA FOR RS. 1,07,00 ,000/- FROM ONE SMT. SUNDER DEVI. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED MONEY FROM N INE PERSONS AS ADVANCE FOR SALE OF ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LIST OF PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE ADVANCE IS AS FO LLOWS: S. NO. NAME AMOUNT 1 GOVIND NARAIN 2,51,000/- 2 GORU RAM JAT 5,51,000/- 3 RAJVEER SINGH MEENA 5,00,000/- 4 SHEOJI RAM GURJAR 5,80,000/- 5 SHIV RAM JAT 5,51,000/- 6 RAMESH KUMAR SAINI 5,00,000/- 7 OM PRAKASH SAINI 5,00,000/- 8 KAILASH CHAND SAINI 5,50,000/- 9 KAMAL KISHORE 5,50,000/- 10 PG NETWORK MARKET PVT. LTD. 50,00,000/- 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECE IVED A GIFT OF RS. 5,51,000 FROM HER FATHER IN LAW AND ANOTHER GIF T OF RS. 2,51,000 FROM HER FATHER. THAT THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND COULD N OT BE SOLD TO NINE FARMERS AS THEY COULD NOT PAY THE REMAINING AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE USED THESE ADVANCES AND GIFTS TO MAKE THE PAYMENT FOR TH E LAND PURCHASED. THAT ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PERSONS FROM WHOM TH E AFOREMENTIONED ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS AND CON FIRMATIONS. THE LD. AO EVEN ISSUED SUMMONS AND RECORDED STATEMENTS U/S 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FOR THE COMPANY I.E. PG NETWORK MARKET PVT . LTD., THE LD. AO SOUGHT NECESSARY CONFIRMATION AND DOCUMENTS THROUGH SECTION 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THAT ALL THE PERSONS ACCEPTED A ND CONFIRMED THAT ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 4 THEY HAVE GIVEN THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR STATEMENTS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DOUBT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR IDENTITY AN D THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. AS FAR AS PG NETWORK MARKET PVT. LTD I S CONCERNED, THE LD. AO WAS SATISFIED AFTER LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS AND DI D NOT TREAT THAT ADVANCE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT. THE LD. AO TREATED THE REST OF THE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CAS H CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AS THE LD. AO WAS NOT SATISFIED AS TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PERSONS. THE LD. AO DID NOT EVEN ACCEPT TH E GIFTS RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER AND FATHER IN LAW AND TREATED THE SAME A S UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH WAS CONF IRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 5. IN THE AFORESAID FACTUAL BACKGROUND, IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT WHERE VERY REASONS FOR WHICH CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REO PENED U/S 148 DOESNT SURVIVE AS NO ADDITIONS WERE MADE U/S 69, THEN ADDI TION FOR OTHER TRANSACTIONS UNDER SECTION 68 CANNOT BE MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A C ONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,07,00,000/- AND GIVEN THE MEAGRE SOURCES OF I NCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT AMOUNT O F RS. 1,07,00,000/- INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAS ESCA PED ASSESSMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED W ITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION COULD HAVE BE EN MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, HOWEVER, NO ADDITION S WERE MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHERE NO ADDITIO NS HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 69, THEN IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO FURTHER ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER INCOME AS DONE IN THE INSTANT CASE WHERE THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 68 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON HONBLE RAJASTHAN H IGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS SHRI RAM SINGH [2008] 217 CTR 345. ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 5 6. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN WHERE IT IS H ELD THAT ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27. 03.2015 AND APPELLATE ORDER DATED 22.01.2018, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS N O DOUBT WITH RESPECT TO GENUINENESS OF THE SECOND TRANSACTION WHERE THE ASS ESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ADVANCE TOWARDS THE SALE OF ANOTHER AGRICULTURE LAND AND IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS WHO ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND WHO HAVE AGR EED TO PURCHASE THE LAND. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) , BOTH HAVE STATED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDITWORT HINESS OF THE THESE PERSONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BASIC MEANING OF CREDITWORTHINESS IS THE CAPACITY TO ADVANCE MONEY AND THE LAW NOWHERE S TATES THAT THE SAME HAS TO BE PROVEN BY FURNISHING OF BANK ACCOUNT STAT EMENTS AND PAN. IF A PERSON DOES HAVE A PAN AND BANK ACCOUNT, IT DOES NO T AUTOMATICALLY MEAN, HE IS CREDITWORTHY TO ADVANCE MONEY. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) BOTH FAILED TO RELY ON THE FACTS REVOLVING AROUND THESE NINE FARMERS FROM WHOM THE ADVANCES HA VE BEEN RECEIVED AND WHO HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND THEIR STATEM ENTS WERE RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND B EYOND ENSURING THEIR PERSONAL APPEARANCE BEFORE THE AO, IT WAS NOT POSSI BLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS WITH ANY FURTHER EVIDE NCE AS MOST OF THESE PEOPLE WERE FARMERS NOT HAVING PAN AS WELL AS BANK ACCOUNTS. THAT THE LD. AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSID ERED THAT EVERY PERSON HAS GIVEN A STATEMENT WITH REGARDS TO THEIR YEARLY EARNINGS AND AS TO WHY THEY WANTED TO PURCHASE THE SAID LAND. THAT THE LD. AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A LARGE SUM IF WE CONSIDER INDI VIDUAL TRANSACTIONS. IF THESE FARMERS ARE NOT HAVING BANK ACCOUNTS, HAVING 5 LAKH IN CASH IN HAND IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT WHICH ANY PERSON CAN KEEP FO R HIS HOUSEHOLD NEEDS. THAT EVERY PERSON IN THEIR STATEMENT HAS STA TED THE SOURCE OF ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 6 FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSE SSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THAT THERE ARE ONLY 7 TO 9 CRORE PEO PLE (APPROX.) WHO ARE FILING ITRS AND HAVING PAN IN THE COUNTRY AS OF NOW . AND ALL CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY DID NOT HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE IMPL EMENTATION OF PM JAN DHAN YOJANA, WILL THE DEPARTMENT TREAT ALL THE TRAN SACTIONS WITH SUCH PEOPLE AS NON-GENUINE TRANSACTIONS? THAT MOST OF T HESE PEOPLE ARE HAVING SIZEABLE IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE Y GROW VEGETABLES WHICH ARE CASH RICH CROPS. THAT THE LD. AO DID NOT POINT OUT ANY FAULT AND DISCREPANCIES WITHIN THE STATEMENTS RECORDED. HE DI D NOT EVEN RECORD ANY DISSATISFACTION FROM THEIR RESPONSES. THAT IF THE L D. AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE STATEMENTS OF THESE PEOPLE, THEN HE SHOULD HAVE CATEGORICALLY RECORDED HIS DISSATISFACTION IN THAT REGARD. HE CAN NOT MERELY MAKE AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE BASIS OF NON-PRODUCTION OF PAN AND BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS. THAT EVEN OTHERWIS E IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOUR CE OF SOURCE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTS DECISION IN CASE OF CIT V. B HIM SINGH CHUNDAWAT (2016) SCC ONLINE RAJ 3103. THAT WHEN THESE PEOPLE HAVE ACCEPTED THE TRANSACTIONS, HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. AO, AND HAVE ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS SATISFACTORILY, THEN THE ADDITION MADE U/ S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNLAWFUL. THAT IN REGARDS TO THE MONEY RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM FATHER AND FATHER-IN-LAW, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BOT H THE GIFT DEEDS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. AO. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO IN HIS ORDER STATED THAT ONLY ONE GIFT DEED I.E. THE ONE FROM THE FATHER-IN- LAW WAS SUBMITTED. THAT THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SUBMITTED THE GIFT DEEDS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE OTHER GIFT DEED. THAT THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 IS ARBITRARY AND UNLAWFUL AS ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AS PER SECTION 6 8 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, FOR IT TO BE APPLICABLE, MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS A CONDITION ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 7 PRECEDENT AND IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON CI T V. BHAICHAND N GANDHI 141 ITR 67 (BOM) AND OTHER DECISIONS. IT WA S ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE AO BE D IRECTED TO BE DELETED. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CAS E WHERE THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF INVESTME NT IN PURCHASE OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND AS THE AO HAD A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THAT EXTENT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING U/S 147 BEFORE THE LD CIT( A) WHO HAD DISMISSED THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL AND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE SAID GROUND. THEREFORE, AS FAR AS ASSU MPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 IS CONCERNED, THE SAME HAS ATTAINED FINALIT Y. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND IN RE SPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED THE ADVANCE FRO M THESE NINE PERSONS AND ONE COMPANY. THE AO HAS RECORDED A FINDING THA T THESE NINE PERSONS PRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE DONOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL NETWORTH TO PURCHASE SUCH AN EXPENSIVE PIECE OF LAND AND THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PERSONS AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE RIGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A ). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE AO HAS INVOKED SECTION 68, THE ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AGRIC ULTURE LAND AS THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND S ATISFACTORY. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF TWO DONORS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PR OVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PERSONS AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE RIGHTLY BEE N MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). THE LD DR ACCOR DINGLY RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 8 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ORIGINALLY FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 23.05.2011 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 14. 11.2013. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE REASONS F OR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AN A GRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE- GHEGHA, PATWAR REGION- AWANIA, INSPECTING AREA BAGRU KALAN, TEHSIL- SANGANER, DISTT. JAIPUR FOR A CONSID ERATION OF RS. 1,07,00,000/- ON 21/12/2009 FROM SMT. SUNDER DE VI W/O SHRI SHAWAN KEER. GIVEN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING MEAGER SOU RCE OF INCOME AND NOT EXPECTED TO MAKE SUCH HUGE INVESTMENT, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS HAVING REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 1,07,0 0,000/- INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. 9. WE THEREFORE, FIND THAT THE REASON FOR REOPENING WERE TO VERIFY SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE AGRIC ULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,07,00,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS REGARDING SOU RCE OF THE INVESTMENTS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS RE CEIVED ADVANCE OF RS. 50,00,000/- FROM M/S P. G. WAY NETWORK MARKETIN G PVT. LTD. TO WHOM NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS ISSUED AND IN RESPONSE, THE S AID COMPANY SUBMITTED ITS NECESSARY CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH AUDITED BALA NCE-SHEET, BANK STATEMENT AND OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH WAS FOUND SATISF ACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 45,33,000/- FROM NINE AGRICULTURISTS AS ADVANCE TOWARDS SALE OF ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE SAID MONEY WAS US ED FOR PURCHASE OF THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE SUMMONS WERE ISSUED U/S 131 AND STATEMENT OF THESE AGRICULTURIST S WERE RECORDED BY THE ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 9 ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER HE LD THAT THESE AGRICULTURIST DO NOT HAVE ANY FINANCIAL NETWORTH FO R PURCHASE OF SUCH EXPENSIVE PIECE OF LAND AND THEREFORE, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS COULD NOT PROVED AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 45,33,000/- WAS TREATE D AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED GIFT OF RS. 2,51,000/- FROM HER FATHER AND RS. 5,51,000/- FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW AND A COPY OF GIFT DEEDS WERE SUBMITT ED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, FOR THE REASON THA T THE FINANCIAL NETWORTH OF THE DONERS WAS NOT PROVED, THE AMOUNT O F RS. 8,02,000/- WAS ALSO TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF T HE ACT WHICH ON APPEAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 10. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE REASONS FOR INITIATI NG THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE IN RELATION TO EXAMINATION OF SOUR CE OF INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,07 ,00,000/- AND WHERE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOU ND SATISFACTORY, THE ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT WHI CH READS AS UNDER:- 69. WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECED ING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NO T RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NA TURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM I S NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE OF SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. 11. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT AS AMOUNT R ECEIVED AS ADVANCE TOWARDS SALE OF ANOTHER AGRICULTURE LAND AND RECEIP T OF GIFTS. WE THEREFORE ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 10 FIND THAT THERE ARE TWO INDEPENDENT TRANSACTIONS ON E IS PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,07,00,000/- AND THE SECOND IS OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE A SSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 45,33,000/-. ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE SECOND T RANSACTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE UTILIZED TOWARDS DISCHARGE OF CONSIDE RATION TOWARDS THE FIRST TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AN D TO THAT EXTENT, THESE TWO TRANSACTIONS CAN BE SAID TO BE CONNECTED, HOWEV ER, RETAIN THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTRIBUTES AND CHARACTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S 69 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE REASON FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WERE R ECORDED AND NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED, HOWEVER, HE HAS BROUGHT THE SEC OND SET OF TRANSACTIONS TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: 68. WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS O F AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. 12. WE THEREFORE, FIND THAT THESE ARE TWO INDEPENDE NT TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WHERE NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT U/S 69 FOR WHICH THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT , AND THUS, THE VERY BASIS FOR REASSESSMENT DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE, IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TRAVE L BEYOND AND EXTEND HIS JURISDICTION AND BRING TO TAX OTHERS TRANSACTIONS T O TAX U/S 68 OF THE ACT DURING SUCH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE INVO CATION OF THESE TWO ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 11 SECTIONS IS IN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTAN CES AS IT CLEAR FROM THE WORDINGS OF THESE TWO SECTIONS. IN THIS REGARD, US EFUL REFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS SHRI RAM SINGH (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 24. REVERTING BACK TO LANGUAGE OF SECTION 147, THI S MUCH IS CLEAR, THAT THE SINE QUA NON FOR CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTIO N ON THE AO, TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THAT SECTION IS, THAT HE SHOULD HAVE 'REASON TO BELIEVE' THAT 'ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR' AND THAT, BEING THAT SITUATION, BEING AVAILABLE, I.E., THE AO HAVING ENTERTAINED A 'REASON TO BELIEVE', OBVIOUSLY ON VALID GROUNDS, HE ACQUIRES T HE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS OR REASSESS 'SUCH INCOME', WHICH OBVIOUSLY M EANS, THE INCOME, WHICH WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX, AND HAD ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, ACCORDING TO HIS 'REASON T O BELIEVE', AND WHILE SO ASSESSING OR REASSESSING, HE CAN ALSO, IN ADDITION, ASSESS OR REASSESS 'ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH MAY COME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQU ENTLY IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147'. 25. THE PRECISE QUESTION, THUS REQUIRING TO BE CONS IDERED IS, AS TO WHETHER, THE CONJUNCTIVE WORD USED, BEING 'AND', US ED BETWEEN THE EXPRESSION 'SUCH INCOME' AND 'ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES T O HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147' IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN ITS DUE, OR IS REQUIRED TO BE IGNORED, OR IS REQUIRED TO BE INTERPRETED AS 'OR'. OBVIOUSLY BECAU SE, IF IT IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS 'OR', THEN THE LANGUAGE WOULD READ A S UNDER: ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 12 '147. IF THE AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCO ME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, A SSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME OR ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SU BSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, O R RE-COMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALL OWANCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HER EAFTER IN THIS SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR).' 26. BUT THEN IF IT WERE TO BE SO READ, THE WORD 'AL SO' BECOMES REDUNDANT, AND TO MAKE SENSE OF THE SENTENCE, THE S ECTION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE READ BY IGNORING THE WORDS 'ALSO' , AS WELL, IN WHICH EVENT, THE SECTION WOULD READ AS UNDER: '147. IF THE AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCO ME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, A SSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME OR ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX W HICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SU BSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, O R RE-COMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALL OWANCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HER EAFTER IN THIS SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR).' 27. IT IS ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION O F STATUTES, THAT THE PARLIAMENT IS PRESUMED TO BE NOT EXTRAVAGANT, IN US ING THE WORDS, ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 13 AND THEREFORE, EVERY WORD USED IN THE SECTION, IS R EQUIRED TO BE GIVEN ITS DUE MEANING. 28. IF CONSIDERED ON THAT PRINCIPLE, LEAVING APART FOR THE MOMENT, THE ASPECT OF INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD 'AND' AS ' OR', THE EXISTENCE OF THE WORD 'ALSO' IS OF A GREAT SIGNIFICANCE, BEIN G OF CONJUNCTIVE NATURE, AND LEAVES NO MANNER OF DOUBT IN OUR OPINIO N, THAT IT IS ONLY WHEN, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 THE AO, ASSE SSES OR REASSESSES ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH HE HAD 'REASON TO BELIEVE' TO BE SO, THEN ONLY, IN ADDITIO N, HE CAN ALSO PUT TO TAX, THE OTHER INCOME, CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH HAS COME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQU ENTLY, IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147. 29. TO CLARIFY IT FURTHER, OR TO PUT IT IN OTHER WO RDS, IN OUR OPINION, IF IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147, THE AO WERE TO COME TO CONCLUSION, THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO T AX, WHICH, ACCORDING TO HIS 'REASON TO BELIEVE', HAD ESCAPED A SSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, DID NOT ESCAPE ASSESSMENT, THE N, THE MERE FACT, THAT THE AO ENTERTAINED A REASON TO BELIEVE, ALBEIT EVEN A GENUINE REASON TO BELIEVE, WOULD NOT CONTINUE TO VE ST HIM WITH THE JURISDICTION, TO SUBJECT TO TAX, ANY OTHER INCOME, CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH THE AO MAY FIND TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, A ND WHICH MAY COME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE COURSE OF P ROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147. ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 14 13. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COUR T HAS THEREAFTER BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. JET AIRLINES INDIA PVT. LTD (2010) 195 TAXMANN 117 WHEREIN AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147, IT WA S HELD THAT EXPLANATION 3 DOES NOT AND CANNOT OVERRIDE THE NECESSITY OF FUL FILLING THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF SECTION 147 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT CONTINUES TO HOLD THE FIELD AN D THE RELEVANT FINDINGS READ AS UNDER: 14. THE SECOND LINE OF PRECEDENT IS REFLECTED IN A JUDGMENT OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CIT V. SHRI RAM SINGH [2008 ] 306 ITR 343 . THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT CONSTRUED THE WORDS USED B Y PARLIAMENT IN SECTION 147 PARTICULARLY THE WORDS THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER 'MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER I NCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PRO CEEDINGS' UNDER SECTION 147. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLO WS : '. . . IF IS ONLY WHEN, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 147 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSES OR REASSESSES ANY INCOME CHARGEAB LE TO TAX, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, WIT H RESPECT TO WHICH HE HAD 'REASON TO BELIEVE' TO BE SO, THEN, ON LY IN ADDITION, HE CAN ALSO PUT TO TAX, THE OTHER INCOME, CHARGEABLE T O TAX, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AND WHICH HAS COME TO HIS NOTIC E SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SE CTION 147. TO CLARIFY IT FURTHER, OR TO PUT IT IN OTHER WORDS, IN OUR OPINION, IF IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147, THE AS SESSING OFFICER WERE TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION, THAT ANY INCOME CHA RGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH, ACCORDING TO HIS 'REASON TO BELIEVE', HAD ES CAPED ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 15 ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, DID NOT ESCAPE ASSESSMENT, THEN, THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENTE RTAINED A REASON TO BELIEVE, ALBEIT EVEN A GENUINE REASON TO BELIEVE , WOULD NOT CONTINUE TO VEST HIM WITH THE JURISDICTION, TO SUBJ ECT TO TAX, ANY OTHER INCOME, CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MAY FIND TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AND WHICH MAY COME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SE CTION 147.' 15. PARLIAMENT, WHEN IT ENACTED THE EXPLANATION (3) TO SECTION 147 BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009 CLEARLY HAD BEFORE IT BOTH THE LINES OF PRECEDENT ON THE SUBJECT. THE PRECEDENT DEALT WI TH TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS. WHEN IT EFFECTED THE AMENDMENT BY BRINGI NG IN EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147, PARLIAMENT STEPPED IN TO CORRECT WHAT IT REGARDED AS AN INTERPRETATIONAL ERROR IN THE VIE W WHICH WAS TAKEN BY CERTAIN COURTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RESTRICT THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY TO THE ISSUES IN RESPECT OF WHICH REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR REOPENIN G THE ASSESSMENT. THE CORRECTIVE EXERCISE EMBARKED UPON B Y 'PARLIAMENT IN THE FORM OF EXPLANATION 3 CONSEQUENTLY PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THOUGH THE REASONS FOR SUCH ISSUE W ERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(2). THE DE CISIONS OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA) AND OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN VIPAN KHANNA'S C ASE (SUPRA) WOULD, THEREFORE, NO LONGER HOLD THE FIELD. HOWEVER , INSOFAR AS THE SECOND LINE OF AUTHORITY IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS REF LECTED IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN SHRI RAM SI NGH'S CASE (SUPRA), EXPLANATION 3 AS INSERTED BY PARLIAMENT WO ULD NOT TAKE ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 16 AWAY THE BASIS OF THAT DECISION. THE VIEW WHICH WAS TAKEN BY THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT WAS ALSO TAKEN IN ANOTHER JUDG MENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. ATLAS CYCLE I NDUSTRIES [1989] 180 ITR 3191. THE DECISION IN ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIE S' CASE (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED W ITH THE REASSESSMENT, ONCE HE FOUND THAT THE TWO GROUNDS ME NTIONED IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WERE INCORRECT OR NON-EXIS TENT. THE DECISIONS OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ATL AS CYCLE INDUSTRIES' CASE (SUPRA) AND OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN SHRI RAM SINGH'S CASE (SUPRA) WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY T HE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SEC TION 147.- 16. EXPLANATION 3 LIFTS THE EMBARGO, WHICH WAS INSE RTED BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, ON THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT OR R EASSESSMENT ON GROUNDS OTHER THAN THOSE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A NO TICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 SETTING OUT THE REASONS FOR THE B ELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THOSE JUDICIAL DECISIONS HA D HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED ON TH E GROUND THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON A CERTAIN ISS UE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OR R EASSESSMENT ON ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH CAME TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE P ROCEEDINGS. THIS INTERPRETATION WILL NO LONGER HOLD THE FIELD AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 BY THE FINANCE ACT (NO. 2) OF 2009. H OWEVER, EXPLANATION 3 DOES NOT AND CANNOT OVERRIDE THE NECE SSITY OF FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF S ECTION 147. AN EXPLANATION TO A STATUTORY PROVISION IS INTENDED TO EXPLAIN ITS CONTENTS AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO OVERRIDE IT OR RENDER THE SUBSTANCE AND CORE NUGATORY. SECTION 147 HAS THIS E FFECT THAT THE ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 17 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INC OME ('SUCH INCOME') WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE FORMATION OF BELIEF AND IF HE DOES SO, HE CAN ALSO ASSESS OR REASSESS ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND W HICH, COMES TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, IF AFTER ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, HE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDS THAT THE INCOME WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OP EN TO HIM INDEPENDENTLY TO ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME. IF HE IN TENDS TO DO SO, A FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WOULD BE NECESSARY , THE LEGALITY OF WHICH WOULD BE TESTED IN THE EVENT OF A CHALLENGE B Y THE ASSESSEE. 17. WE HAVE APPROACHED THE ISSUE OF INTERPRETATION THAT HAS ARISEN FOR DECISION IN THESE APPEALS, BOTH AS A MATTER OF FIRST PRINCIPLE, BASED ON THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 147(1) AND ON THE BASIS OF THE PRECEDENT ON THE SUBJECT. WE AGREE WITH THE SUB MISSION WHICH HAS BEEN URGED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SECTI ON 147(1) AS IT STANDS POSTULATES THAT UPON THE FORMATION OF A REAS ON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS O R REASSESS SUCH INCOME 'AND ALSO' ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE PROCEEDINGS A S HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE WORDS 'AND ALSO' ARE USED I N A CUMULATIVE AND CONJUNCTIVE SENSE. TO READ THESE WORDS AS BEING IN THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO REWRITE THE LANGUAGE USED B Y PARLIAMENT. OUR VIEW HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE BACKGROUND WHICH LED TO THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147. PARLIAME NT MUST BE REGARDED AS BEING AWARE OF THE INTERPRETATION THAT WAS PLACED ON ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 18 THE WORDS 'AND ALSO' BY THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN SHRI RAM SINGH'S CASE (SUPRA). PARLIAMENT HAS NOT TAKEN AWAY THE BASIS OF THAT DECISION. WHILE IT IS OPEN TO PARLIAMENT, HAVI NG REGARD TO THE PLENITUDE OF ITS LEGISLATIVE POWERS TO DO SO, THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 147(1) AS THEY STOOD AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF 1-4-198 9 CONTINUE TO HOLD THE FIELD. 14. IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS REFERRED SUPRA AND IN ABSENCE OF CONTRARY /SUPERIOR AUTHORITY, WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE ARE TWO INDEPE NDENT TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND AND WHERE THERE ARE NO AD DITIONS MADE U/S 69 TOWARDS THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF LAND FOR WHICH TH E AO ISSUES NOTICE U/S 148, THE AO CANNOT BRING TO TAX THE OTHER TRANSACTI ON TO TAX U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 15. FURTHER, ON MERITS, WE FIND THAT ONCE THE SUMMO NS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THESE PERSONS HAVE APPEARED AND GIVEN TH EIR STATEMENTS BEFORE THE AO WHEREIN THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE AGRI CULTURAL LAND AND HAS ALSO DISCLOSED THE SOURCE OF THEIR EARNINGS/SAVINGS , THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE NECESSARY ONUS CAST ON HER IN TERMS OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION REGARDING RECEIPT OF GIFTS FROM FATHER AND FATHER-IN-LAW WHIC H IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE RESPECTIVE GIFT DEEDS, THE CONTENTS AND AUTHENC ITY OF WHICH ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. IN CASE OF CIT VS SHRI BHIM SINGH CHUNDAWAT (SUPRA) , THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 4. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A ) REVEALS THAT THE CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUI NENESS OF EACH ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 19 AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTION AND FOUND 13 CREDI TORS AS GENUINE. THE ITAT HAS ARRIVED AT THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS ESTABLISHED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS TO THE EXTENT HE IS OBLIGED UNDER THE LAW TO DO SO. THE ITAT FOUND THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THEY HAD ADVANCED THEIR RESPECTIVE CREDITS TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE SOURCES OF THE DEPOSI T. THE ITAT OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BURDENED WITH PROOF OF SOURCE OF SOURCE AND THE CASH CREDIT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INGENUINE BY STRETCHING THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 TOO FAR. WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A), AFFIRME D BY THE ITAT REGARDING IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS AND CREDITWORTH INESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS REMAIN FINDINGS OF FACTS, WHICH DO NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 16. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE ADDITION SO MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, G ROUND NO. 3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/02/2021. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 02/02/2021 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHEELA YOGI, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR, JAIPU R ITA NO. 398/JP/2018 SHEELA YOGI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 20 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-4(2), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 398/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR