Shri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4328/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 432820114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: MAYANK JAIN; MADHUR JAIN S
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Gift; Procedural lapse; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 131; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4328/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01) SHRI ANIL KUMAR CHAUDHARY, VS. ITO, WARD 27 (3), ANIL MOTOR STORE, NEW DELHI. VILLAGE SAMALKHA, NEW DELHI 110 037. (PAN : AAEPC6437N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI MAYANK JAIN & MADHUR JAIN, AD VOCATES REVENUE BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.03.2015 ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-XXIV, NEW DELHI DATED 29.07.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147/143(3) OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WAS FINALIZED ON 17.12.2007 AND AN ADDITION OF RS.5,03,000/- WAS MADE WHICH WAS THE AMOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM TH REE PERSONS ON ITA NO.4328/DEL./2011 2 15.04.1999. THE CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- I. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REOP ENING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. II. THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BARRED BY TIME SINCE THE NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD HAD ALREADY EX PIRED. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO VALID REOPENING OF THE ASSE SSMENT. THEREFORE, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT OF THE APPEL LANT NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. III. THERE WAS NO INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT OF TH E ASSESSEE. INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE DIT (INVESTIGATION) IS NOT 'REASON TO BELIEVE' WITHOUT INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ADMITTEDLY, NO INDEPENDENT APPLI CATION OF MIND WAS THERE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE REOP ENING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IV. NO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE TAX DUE HAD BEEN DISC HARGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITSELF. V. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS. THE ADDRES S AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DONORS HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW OTHERWISE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN COMING TO THE CONCLU SION THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. MOREOV ER, THE RECOURSE TO SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS NOT TAKEN BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALL UPON THE DONORS. VI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY ADDED BACK TO THE AMOUNTS GIVEN BY WAY OF GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE, TO HI S INCOME. 3. IN THE GROUND NOS.1 TO 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, AFTER HEARING BOTH TH E SIDE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE AFTER RECOR DING REASONS AND THERE IS ITA NO.4328/DEL./2011 3 NO LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL INFIRMITY IN ISSUING OF NOT ICE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER ASKED COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED AND IN VIE W OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHA FTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO 259 ITR 19, WE FIND NO MERITS IN THE PLEADING S OF THE LD. AR. FURTHER, THERE IS A DIRECT DECISION OF HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAFETAG INTERNATIONAL INDIA (P.) LTD. RE PORTED IN 332 ITR 622 (DELHI) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDER ED THE SIMILAR SITUATION AND HELD AS UNDER :- WHEN NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED FOR REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RE QUIRED TO RECORD REASONS WHICH LED HIM TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ESCAPED INCOME. LAW DOES NOT MANDATE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUO MOTU SUPPLY THE COPY OF THOSE 'REASONS TO BELIEVE' TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE AND IF ASSESSEE SO CHOOSES CAN FILE OBJECTIONS THERETO. ONLY WHEN SUCH OBJECTIONS ARE FILED, IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISPOS E OF ALL THOSE OBJECTIONS FIRST BY PASSING SPEAKING ORDER AN D IF THE OBJECTIONS ARE REJECTED IT GIVES A CAUSE TO THE ASS ESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE SAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER B Y FILING APPROPRIATE WRIT PETITION. THIS IS THE LAW DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHAFTS (INDI A) LTD. V. ITO [2003]259 ITR 19/[2002]125 TAXMAN 963(SC)[PARA 6]. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ASK FOR T HESE 'REASONS TO BELIEVE'. THE ASSESSEE RATHER PARTICIPATED IN TH E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHEN THE REASSESSMENT ORD ERS WERE PASSED AND THE ASSESSEE FELT AGGRIEVED THERE A GAINST, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS). IN THIS APPEAL, HE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WAS THE COURSE OF ACTION AVAILAB LE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THUS, COULD E XAMINE THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT REOPENED WAS VALID OR NOT. ONCE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THAT THE SECOND APPEAL WAS ALSO PREFERRED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL CO ULD NOT ITA NO.4328/DEL./2011 4 HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER, AND GIVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE TO RAISE OBJECTIONS TO 'REASONS TO BELIEVE' RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS EVEN UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). IT WAS THE ASSESSEE'S OWN C REATION THAT IT DID NOT ASK FOR THE REASONS OR RAISE OBJECT ION THERETO. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS OBLIVIOUS OF SUCH A RIGHT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE GRANTE D THIS RIGHT TO THE ASSESSEE, THAT TOO, AT THE STAGE WHEN THE MATTER WAS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND TRAVELLED MUCH BEYOND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER'S JURISDICTION. IT IS TRITE THAT WHAT CANNOT BE DONE DIRECTLY, IT IS NOT ALLOWED INDIRECTLY AS WELL . THIS NOVEL AND IN GENUINENESS METHOD ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N SETTING ASIDE THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS ON MERITS COULD NOT B E ACCEPTED. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUPP LIED ANY PURCHASE INASMUCH AS IT WAS STILL OPEN TO THE ASSES SEE TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT NOTICE BEFOR E THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE DI D SO FOR AVAILING THAT OPPORTUNITY. [PARA 7] AS A RESULT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBU NAL WAS SET ASIDE. [PARA 8] AS REGARDS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WHILE REPELLING THE CHALLENG E LAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS MORE THAN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DULY RECORDED THE 'R EASONS TO BELIEVE' AS PER WHICH THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSME NT WAS JUSTIFIED AND ON THIS GROUND, CHALLENGE TO THE VALI DITY OF THE NOTICE WAS TURNED DOWN. THE ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED IN HIS SUBMISSION THAT AT LEAST AT THIS STAGE, THE ASSESSE E COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE 'REASONS TO BELIEVE' RECORDE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE HI S SUBMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PREDIC ATED ON THE SAID 'REASONS TO BELIEVE'. WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS DIRECTED THAT THE MATTER BE RE MITTED BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE REVENUE SHALL SU PPLY 'REASONS TO BELIEVE' RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WITHIN FOUR WEEKS FROM TODAY. ON THE SUPPLY OF THESE 'REAS ONS TO BELIEVE', IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) BASED ON THOSE REASONS, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESS MENT ITA NO.4328/DEL./2011 5 PROCEEDINGS AND THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL DE CIDE THIS ISSUE ON MERITS AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES . [PARA 9] SINCE THERE IS NO LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE REQUIRED REA SONS WHICH LED HIM TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. LAW D OES NOT PROVIDE OR MANDATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL SUO MOTU S HALL SUPPLY THE COPY OF THOSE REASONS TO BELIEVE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR ASSESSEE AND IF ASSESSEE CHOOSES TO ASK FOR REASONS THEN HE/SHE CAN FILE OBJ ECTION THERETO. ONLY WHEN SUCH OBJECTIONS ARE FILED, IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISPOSE OF ALL THOSE OBJECTIONS FIRST BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AND IF THE OBJECTIONS ARE REJECTED THEN IT GIVES A CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE SUCH ORDER BY FILING AN APPROPRIATE WRIT. THIS IS THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DR IVE SHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. CITED SUPRA. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSE E DID NOT ASK FOR REASONS TO BELIEVE. THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN THE REASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. THE ASSESSEE FELT A GGRIEVED TO SUCH ORDER AND FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT ( A) HAS PASSED AN APPROPRIATE ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, WE HOLD THA T THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING A LEGAL AND VALID NOTICE U/S 14 8 OF THE ACT. ON THE PROCEDURAL ASPECT ALSO, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN TH E NOTICE. THE NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 143(1) WERE ALSO PROPERLY SERVED ON THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.4328/DEL./2011 6 3.1 HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A.G. HO LDINGS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN 352 ITR 364 HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT OR SECTION 148 OR SECTION 14 9 THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT SHOULD ALSO AC COMPANY THE NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT ISSUED U/S 148. THE REQUIREMENT IN SE CTION 149(1) IS ONLY THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 SHALL BE ISSUED. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT IT SHOULD ALSO BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION. THERE IS ALSO NO REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 148(2) THAT THE REASONS RECORDED SHALL BE SERVED ALONG WITH THE NOTICE OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS MANDATORY, IS ONLY THAT BEFOR E ISSUING THE NOTICE TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECORD HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUN D TO SUPPLY THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT TO THE ASSESS EE, AFTER THE ASSESSEE FILES THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U /S 148 AND ON HIS MAKING A REQUEST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THAT EFFECT. I N THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY R EQUEST FOR SUPPLY OF THE REASONS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTUAL MATRIXES, WE DIS MISS THESE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 4. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER ISSUES WITH RESPECT OF MERITS OF THE ADDITION RAISED IN GROUND NOS.4 TO 6, WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATIONS/AFFIDAVITS FRO M THE DONORS ALONG WITH GIFT DEEDS EXECUTED BETWEEN DONOR AND DONEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO.4328/DEL./2011 7 PROCEEDINGS. THE COPIES OF RATION CARDS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED TO ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE FULL ADDRESSES OF THESE DONORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF INCOME-TAX RETU RNS OF THESE DONORS. COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS AND CHEQUES/DRAFTS WERE ALS O SUBMITTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THE VERACITY OF THESE AFFIDAVITS, CONFIRMATIONS, BANK ACCOUNTS, RATION CARDS AND GIFT DEEDS. HE HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DONORS. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO THESE DONORS. BY FI LING THESE PRIMARY DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE P RIMARY ONUS. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE VERACIT Y OF THESE GIFT DEEDS/AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO ARRIV ING AT A CONCLUSION FOR REJECTING THE SAME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT TAKEN THE INVESTIGATION TO ANY LOGICAL END WHEN HE WAS EMPOWE RED BY THE LAW FOR ISSUING THE SUMMONS TO MAKE THE PRESENCE OF THESE D ONORS. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO TAKE INVESTIGATION TO THE LOGICAL END WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS, IN SU CH A SITUATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING O R REJECTING THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON TH E DECISION OF HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAROGI CREDIT CORPO RATION VS. CIT, BIHAR 103 ITR 344 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- HELD, THAT IF THE CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSEE' S WIFE AND CHILDREN, OR IN THE NAME OF ANY OTHER CLOSE RELATIO N OR AN ITA NO.4328/DEL./2011 8 EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BURDEN LIES ON THE AS SESSEE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE ENTRY. BUT IF THE ENTRY DOES NOT STAND IN THE NAME OF ANY SUCH PE RSON HAVING A CLOSE RELATION OR CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE, B UT IN THE NAME OF AN INDEPENDENT PARTY, THE BURDEN WILL STILL LIE ON HIM TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THAT PARTY AND TO SATI SFY THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER THAT THE ENTRY IS REAL AND NOT FICTITIO US. ONCE THE IDENTITY OF THE THIRD PARTY IS ESTABLISHED BEFORE T HE INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND OTHER SUCH EVIDENCE ARE PRIME FACIE PLA CED BEFORE HIM POINTING TO THE FACT THAT THE ENTRY IS NOT FICT ITIOUS, THE INITIAL BURDEN LYING ON THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DULY DISCHARGED BY HIM. IT WILL NOT, THEREFORE, BE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN FURTHER AS TO HOW OR IN WHAT CI RCUMSTANCES THE THIRD PARTY OBTAINED THE MONEY OR HOW OR WHY HE CAME TO MAKE AN ADVANCE OF THE MONEY AS A LOAN TO THE ASSES SEE. ONCE SUCH IDENTITY IS ESTABLISHED AND THE CREDITORS, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, HAVE PLEDGED THEIR OATH THAT THEY HAVE ADVANC ED THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION TO THE ASSESSEE, THE BURDEN IMM EDIATELY SHIFTS ON TO THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW AS TO WHY THE A SSESSEE'S CASE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AND AS TO WHY IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE ENTRY, THOUGH PURPORTING TO BE IN THE NAME OF A THIRD PARTY, STILL REPRESENTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM A SUPPRESSED SOURCE. AND, IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT SUCH A CONCLUSIO N, EVEN THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO BE IN POSSESSION OF SUFFICIENT AN D ADEQUATE MATERIALS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER'S REJECTION, NOT OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT OF THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE DEPOSITORS, COULD NOT B Y ITSELF LEAD TO ANY INFERENCE REGARDING THE NON-GENUINE OR FICTI TIOUS CHARACTER OF THE ENTRIES IN THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CLEARLY POINTED OU T THAT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WERE NO T POSITIVE FINDINGS. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL HAD PARTLY ACCEPTED THE SOURC E TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,000 AND PARTLY REJECTED IT TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.15,000. HAVING ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HAVING ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATI ON OFFERED BY THE THIRD PARTIES WITH REGARD TO THEIR SOURCES O F MONEY IN PART AT LEAST, THERE WAS NO MATERIAL FOR THE TRIBUN AL TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON HIM AND THE ITA NO.4328/DEL./2011 9 FINDING TO THAT EFFECT MUST BE HELD TO BE WITHOUT A NY EVIDENCE AND, HENCE, WHOLLY ILLEGAL AND THE CONCLUSIONS DRAW N PERVERSE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS WIT HIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR THE CASH C REDITS AND THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAINTAI NING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,000 AS THE ASSESSEES INCOME FORM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS, COPY O F GIFT DEEDS AND COPY OF RATION CARDS WHICH CONTAIN THE PARTICULARS OF THE D ONOR INCLUDING ADDRESSES, DETAILS OF FAMILY MEMBERS WHICH WERE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON, IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE HOLD THAT ASSES SEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS AND THEREAFTER IT IS FOR THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS OR ISSUING THE SUMMONS U/S 131(2) TO MAKE THE PRESENCE OF THE DONORS WHICH HE WAS MISERABLY FAILE D TO DO SO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTUAL MATRIXES, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN AL LOWING THESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) (B.C. MEENA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015 TS ITA NO.4328/DEL./2011 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.