Smt MEENA YADAV, Hathras V. ITO 3(4), Hathras

ITA 473/AGR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9984 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R C TOMAR I T P
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Additional evidence; Bogus loan

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 473/AGRA/2015 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 SMT. MEENA YADAV, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, W/O SHRI KAUSHAL KISHORE YADAV, 3(4), HATHRAS. VILL. NAGLA BAD, ATHWARIYA, HATHRAS. [PAN: CILPM9564Q] ITA NO. 474/AGRA/2015 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 SMT. MAMTA YADAV, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, W/O SHRI PRATAP SINGH YADAV, 3(4), HATHRAS. VILL. NAGLA BAD, ATHWARIYA, HATHRAS. [PAN: CILPM9006M] (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI R.C. TOMAR, ITP RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.02.2016 ORDER BOTH THE APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), ALIGARH DATED 21.08.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 AND DATED 26.08.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07. ITA NOS.473 & 474/AGRA/2015 2 2. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES MAINLY ARGUED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, SMT. MEENA YADAV AND SUBMITTED TH AT THE ISSUE IS SAME IN BOTH THE APPEALS AND THE ORDER IN THIS CASE CAN BE FOLLOWED IN CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEE, MAMTA YADAV. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE, THEREF ORE, DISPOSED OF AS UNDER : APPEAL OF SMT. MEENA YADAV : 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.12.2013 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.48,000/- FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. ON PERUSAL OF THE SALE D EED, IT WAS FOUND THAT SMT. MEENA YADAV W/O SHRI KAUSHAL KISHORE YADAV AND SMT. MAMTA YADAV W/O SH. PRATAP SINGH YADAV PURCHASED/CONSTRUCTED SHOPS ON 0 3.06.2005 FOR COST OF RS.8,00,000/- AND STAMP DUTY OF RS.1,15,700/- FROM SMT. MRADULA AGARWAL W/O SHRI RAMESH CHAND AGARWAL, HATHRAS, OUT OF WHIC H SMT. MEENA YADAV IS HAVING SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THEREFORE, OUT OF RS.9,15,700/-, I.E., RS.4,57,850/- WAS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE S AID PROPERTY. 4. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED REPLY BEFORE THE AO THAT HER HUSBAND PAID CASH OF RS.1,77,000/- AFTER MAKING WITHDRAWALS FROM CANA RA BANK, HATHRAS, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER REPLY ALONG WITH AFFIDAVITS OF SHRI BHAGWAN DAS FOR GIVING OF LOAN OF RS.20,000 /- ON 25.05.2005 TO THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SURESH CHAND YADAV, GIVING LOAN OF R S.19,500/- ON 28.05.2005 ITA NOS.473 & 474/AGRA/2015 3 TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI KISHAN LALO YADAV GIVING L OAN OF RS.50,000/- ON 06.05.2005 AND RS.60,000/- ON 03.04.2005. THE AO NO TED THAT THESE PERSONS DID NOT APPEAR ON COMPLIANCE AND NO REPLY HAS BEEN FILED, THEREFORE, THESE WERE TREATED AS BOGUS LOANS. NO FURTHER EXPLANATION OR EVIDENCES WERE FILED TO PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. THEREFOR E, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,60,850/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ABOVE ADDITION BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/ S. 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJE CT TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE AO AND NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIA L HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT AS TO WHAT IS THE ILLEGALITY IN THE REOPENING OF AS SESSMENT. THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE GROUND RAISED FOR REOPENIN G OF ASSESSMENT. 6. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.2,60,850/-, THE AS SESSEE REITERATED THAT THE ABOVE PERSONS, BHAGWAN DAS, SURESH CHAND YADAV AND KISHAN LALO YADAV HAVE FILED THEIR AFFIDAVITS AND IN THE CASE OF KISH AN PAL YADAV, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT WAS ALSO FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXP LAINED THAT SHE HAS SOLD TWO BUFFALOES TO DIFFERENT PERSONS OF RS.45,000/- E ACH AND FILED COPY OF ITA NOS.473 & 474/AGRA/2015 4 RECEIPT. RS. 51,000/- WAS STATED TO BE EARNED FROM DAIRY FARM AND PAST SAVINGS. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE CRE DITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND ME RE FILING OF AFFIDAVIT WILL NOT PROVE ANYTHING. THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY, RE JECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE LOANS. AS REGARDS THE SALE OF BUFFALOES, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT SOME COPIES OF RECEIPT WITH R EGARD TO TWO BUFFALOES SOLD WERE FILED, BUT THE SAME WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO AND NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FILED WHY THE SAME SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT THE A PPELLATE STAGE. NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED WITH REGARD TO PAST SAVINGS OF R S.51,000/- OUT OF DAIRY FARM. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION OF RS.2,60,850/- AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALL ENGE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE AO. NO REASONS WERE ALSO GIVE N BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(A) CORRECTLY REJECTED THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS.473 & 474/AGRA/2015 5 WITH REGARD TO CHALLENGE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT . IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BA SIS OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED EVEN THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN THE PAPER BOOKS. THEREFO RE, IT WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN CHALLENGING THE R EOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE THIS ISSUE AND NO SPECIFIC POINTS HAVE BEEN RAISED TO CHALLENGE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO TAK E A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. WE CONFIRM THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE REMAINING GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGE D ADDITION OF RS.2,60,850/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT LOANS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM BHAGWAN DAS, SURESH CHAND YADAV AND KISHAN LALO YAD AV IN A SUM OF RS. 20,000/-, RS.19,500/- AND RS.1,10,000/- RESPECTIVEL Y. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE LOANS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVITS BEFORE THE AO. IN THE CASE OF KISHAN PAL, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT IS ALSO FILED, BUT THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO CO-RELATE THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE LOAN GIVE N TO THE ASSESSEE ON 06.04.2005 AND 03.06.2005. IT, THEREFORE, STANDS CL EAR THAT THE ASSESSEE MERELY FILED AFFIDAVIT OF THESE CREDITORS AND AS SU CH FAILED TO PROVE THE ITA NOS.473 & 474/AGRA/2015 6 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH CURT IN THE CASE OF B HARTI PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, 111 ITR 951 AND CIT VS. UNITED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIA L CO. PVT. LTD., 187 ITR 591 HAVE HELD THAT MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATION LETT ERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD NOT PROVE BY ITSELF THAT THE LOANS RE CEIVED FROM THE CREDITORS WERE GENUINE OR THAT THEY HAVE CREDITWORTHINESS. ON MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATORY LETTER DID NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS THAT LAY ON THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JU STIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THESE THREE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE FURT HER CLAIMED THAT RS.90,000/- WAS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF TWO BUFFALOES, B UT NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN THIS REGARD BEFORE THE AO AND THEREFORE, NO STEPS W ERE TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE H IM. MERELY PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT FOR SALE OF BUFFALOES WILL NOT DISCHARGE TH E ONUS OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN QUESTION. SOME AFFIDA VITS OF PURCHASERS OF BUFFALOES HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, NO COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME CAN BE TAKEN. 10. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES, NO CREDIT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SALE OF BUFFALOES. FURTHER NO ITA NOS.473 & 474/AGRA/2015 7 EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED WITH REGARD TO PAST SAVINGS OR EARNING ANY AMOUNT OUT OF DAIRY FARM. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT MATERIA L ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.2, 60,850/- AND DISMISS THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. APPEAL OF SMT. MAMTA YADAV : 11. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE SIMILARLY CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND ADDITION OF RS.1,44,850/-. 12. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE SMT. MAMTA YADAV, JOINTLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ALONG WI TH OTHER ASSESSEE SMT. MEENA YADAV. SHE HAD HALF SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. SO URCE OF INVESTMENT BY HER HUSBAND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. OTHER SOURCE F OR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY I.E., LOAN OF RS.20,000/- FROM SHRI MAJOJ YADAV, RS .19,500/- FROM HARI SINGH YADAV AND RS.19,500/- FROM GANGA RAM SHARMA WERE NO T ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND CONSIDERED THE SAME TO BE BOGUS. NO FURTHER SOU RCE IS EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,57,850/-. T HE LD. CIT(A) ON THE SAME ITA NOS.473 & 474/AGRA/2015 8 REASONING AS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE CASE OF SMT. ME ENA YADAV, CONFIRMED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE LOANS BECAUSE MERE AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED. NO FURTHER EVIDENCES WE RE FILED IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OR PAST SAVING FROM DAIRY FARM. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE FURTH ER DIRECTED TO REDUCE THE ADDITION BY RS.13,000/- AND AS SUCH, ADDITION WAS S USTAINED IN A SUM OF RS.1,44,850/-. 13. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SMT. MEENA YADAV. IN THIS CASE ALSO EXCEPT FILING AFFIDAVITS OF THREE CREDITO RS, NO FURTHER EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE REASONING IN T HE CASE OF SMT. MEENA YADAV, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESUL T, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE S ARE DISMISSED. COPY OF THIS ORDER BE PLACED ON BOTH THE FILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2016 *AKS/-