Padam Lal Dua, Faridabad V. ITO, Ward- 2(1), Faridabad

ITA 5134/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8988 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: D C GARG
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 143(2); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5134/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PADAM LAL DUA H. NO.573, SECTOR-49, FARIDABAD PAN NO.ADJPD2281J VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1) FARIDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. D. C. GARG, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. L. ANURAGI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 30/07/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/09/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2017 OF THE CIT(A), FARIDABAD REL ATING TO A. Y. 2011-12. 2. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. EARLIER THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.2007/DEL/2016 ORDE R DATED 23.12.2016 HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF TH E CIT(A) WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER AGAIN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . PAGE | 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31 .03.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,27,980/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH U/S. 143 (1) ON 22.09.2012. SUBSE QUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND N OTICE U/S.143 (2) OF THE IT ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE E ON 08.09.2012 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 17.09.201 2. SINCE NONE ATTENDED ON THAT DATE ANOTHER NOTICE U/S. 143 (2) WAS AGAIN ISSUED ON 25.09.2012. ALTHOUGH THIS NOTICE WA S DULY SERVED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, T HERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. SUBSEQUENT NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER U/S. 143(2) ALSO REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THEREAFTER PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESS MENT U/S. 144 OF THE IT ACT. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME HAS DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,58,400/ - UNDER THE HEAD SALARY AND RS.31,800/- UNDER HEAD INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER, AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED AS PER AIR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS TOTALING TO RS. 26,50,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ING VAISYA BANK LTD. ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A QU ESTIONNAIRE U/S. 133 (6) TO ING VAISYA BANK LIMITED CALLING FOR THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE BANK STATEMENT SO OBTAINED HE NOTED THAT OUT OF THE CASH DEPOSIT S O MADE THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER PURCHASED DEMAND DRAFTS OR ISSU ED CHEQUES TO HIS DAUGHTER MS. RICHA DUA AND MS. BHAWN A AND NO CASH WITHDRAWALS HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST THE ABOVE CASH PAGE | 3 DEPOSITS. FURTHER AS AGAINST THE OPENING CASH BALAN CE AT RS.5,639/- ON 01.04.2010, THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2011 WAS RS.7,905/-. SINCE THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AD DITION OF RS.26,65,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2016 SUSTAINED THE AD DITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE APPROA CHED THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE. 6. DURING SUCH SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE F ILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. THE LD. CIT(A) FORW ARDED THOSE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SU BMIT HIS COMMENTS AND REPORT THEREON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON THE G ROUND THAT DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ALSO SUBMITTED HIS REPORT ON MERITS WITH RESPECT TO EACH ADDITION MADE. THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED THE COPY OF THE REM AND TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED FOR HIS COMMENTS. AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REJOINDER TO SUCH REMAND REPORT BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED AN AMOUNT OF R S.6,80,000/- AND SUSTAINED THE AMOUNT OF RS.19,85,000/- BY OBSER VING AS UNDER :- PAGE | 4 9. GROUND NO.3 AND 4 DEALS WITH FACT THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.26,65,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BAN K ACCOUNT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CAS E AND GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLAN T DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TOGETHER WITH REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. T HE BASIC CRUX OF THE CASE IS THAT THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.26. 65 LACS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME AND HENCE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS MADE BY THE AO. DU RING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED EXPLANATIONS FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT AMOUNTIN G TO RS.26.65 LACS IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATIONS / AFFIDAVITS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS, STATING THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT BY THESE PEOPLE. T HE EVIDENCE SO FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THE REMAND REPORT SO SUBMITTED H AS BEEN REPRODUCED EARLIER. CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT ON THE VARIOUS EVIDEN CES FILED BY THE APPELLANT MY FINDINGS ARE AS BELOW: (I) ANIL SACHDEVA : THE RELEVANT PART OF THE REMAND R EPORT ON THIS AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/- IS AS BELOW: 'SH. ANIL SACHDEVA HAS STATED THAT HE HAD NEVER SIGNED T HE AFFIDAVIT. HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT IS C ORRECT BUT HIS PAN IS NOT CORRECT. THE OTHER FACTS REGARDING GIVING OF RS.3,00,000/- FOR PAGE | 5 GETTING DEMAND DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF MIS HUNDAI MOTORS LTD ARE NOT CORRECT. HE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000 1- TO SH. PADAM LAL DUA IN CASH IN THE F.Y. 2010-11 AND ALSO HAD NOT PURCHASED ANY VEHICLE IN THE F. Y. 2010-11.' AS EVIDENT FROM ABOVE THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION TH AT THIS MONEY HAD BEEN GIVEN BY SH. ANIL SACHDEVA TO THE APPELLANT FAI LS ON A L L COUNTS. HENCE, I SEE NO REASON TO PROVIDE ANY RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT FOR THIS AMOUNT. (II) SANJAY KHATTAR THE RELEVANT PART OF THE REMAND REPORT ON THIS AMOUNT OF RS.2,50,000/- IS AS BELOW: 'SH. SANJAY KHATTER HAS STATED THAT HE HAD NEVER SIGN ED THE AFFIDAVIT. HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER & PAN MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVI T IS CORRECT. THE OTHER FACTS REGARDING GIVING OF RS.2,50,000/- FOR G ETTING DEMAND DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF SH. SURESH AND CHAKRESH ARE NOT CORRECT . HE HAD NEVER GIVEN ANY AMOUNT OF RS.2,50,0001- TO SH. PADAM LAL D UA IN CASH. HE DID NOT KNOW ANY SURESH OR CHAKRESH.' AS EVIDENT FROM ABOVE THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION TH AT THIS MONEY HAD BEEN GIVEN BY SH. SANJAY KHATTAR TO THE APPELLANT FA ILS ON ALL COUNTS. HENCE I SEE NO REASON TO PROVIDE ANY RELIEF TO THE A PPELLANT FOR THIS AMOUNT. (III) BHAWNA NARULA : THE RELEVANT PART OF THE REMAND REP ORT ON THIS AMOUNT OF RS.13,60,000/- IS AS BELOW: 'SUMMON TO MS BHAWNA NARULA RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WIT H THE POSTAL COMMENTS' BAARBAAR LENE WALA BANDMILTA HAI'. SH. PADAM LAL DUA, ASSESSEE WAS INTIMATED TELEPHONICALLY ABOUT TH IS FACT AND WAS REQUESTED TO PRODUCE MS BHAWNA NARULA FOR RECORDING OF HER STATEMENT. BUT ALL IN VAIN. PAGE | 6 AS EVIDENT FROM ABOVE THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION TH AT THIS MONEY HAD BEEN GIVEN BY MS. BHAWNA NARULA TO THE APPELLANT FAILS O N ALL COUNTS. HENCE I SEE NO REASON TO PROVIDE ANY RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT FO R THIS AMOUNT. (IV) PRAKASH SACHDEVA : THERELEVANT PART OF THE REM AND REPORT ON THIS AMOUNT OF RS.6,80,000/- IS AS BELOW: 'SH. PARKASH SACHDEVA HAS ACCEPTED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT HE HAD GIVEN A SUM OF RS.6,90,000/- TO SH. PADAM LAL DUA FOR PURCHASE OF A DEMAND DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF SMT. VIJAY LAXMI GUPTA FROM HIS WIFE SMT. REKHA SAC HDEVA WITH OTHER THREE PERSONS HAD PURCHASED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HE HAS ALSO EXPLAI NED THE SOURCE OF CASH AMOUNT OF RS.6,90,0001- GIVEN TO SH. PADAM LAL DUA FOR DEM AND DRAFT. AS EVIDENT FROM ABOVE THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION, T HAT THIS MONEY HAD BEEN GIVEN BY SH. PRAKASH SACHDEVA TO THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY SH. PRAKASH SACHDEVA, DURING THE COURSE OF HIS STATEMEN T RECORDED BEFORE THE AO ON 05.06.2017. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE APPELLAN T IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,80,000/-. 11. TO SUM UP ON THE BASIS OF THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCT ED BY THE AO THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN T HE SOURCE OF RS.6,80,000/- AND THUS THE ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. THUS, THESE GROUNDS OF THE APPELLANT ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO SHARE THE STATEMENTS OF ALL THE FOUR PERSONS RECORDED BY THE AO NAMELY SH. ANIL SACHDEVA, SH. SANJAY KHATTAR, SH. PARKASH SACHDEVA AND MS. BHAWNA NARULA WITH THE RESPECTIVE AOS OF THESE ASSESSEES, FOR TAKING SUITABLE ACTION NOT ONLY UNDER THE UNDER INCOME TAX ACT BUT ALSO UN DER OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS. TAKING SUITABLE ACTION NOT ONLY UNDER THE UNDER INC OME TAX ACT BUT ALSO UNDER OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS. PAGE | 7 7. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), FARIDABAD, HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ONFACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,85,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.26,65,00 0/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S),FARIDABAD, HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING DULY SWORN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(APPEALS) , FARIDABAD,HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ONFACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF DEPOSITORSGIVEN IN THE RE MAND PROCEEDINGS IN DEVIATION WITH THE AFFIDAVITS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED BY THEM. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ), FARIDABAD, HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT PREPARED BY THE AO WITHO UT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSONS WHO HAVE DEVIATED FROM THEIR O RIGINAL AFFIDAVITS, HENCE THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAVE GROSSLY VIOLATED PRINCIPALS OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), FARIDABAD, HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REJOINDER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE AGAINST THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO. 6. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS), FARIDABAD, AS WELL AS THE AO BOTH HAVE ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND I N CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN NOT TAKING ANY ACTION AGAINST THOSE PERSONS WHO DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAVE DEVIATED FROM THEIR EARLIER DULY SWORN AFFIDAV ITS. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR VARY FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. PAGE | 8 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED T HE NAMES, ADDRESSES, CONTACT NUMBERS AND AFFIDAVITS OF THE PE RSONS WHOSE CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND DEMAND DRAFT WAS ISSUED IN L IEU OF SUCH CASH DEPOSIT THROUGH AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION O F ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46 A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1 962. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS REMAND REPORT. DURING THE REMAND PR OCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE NECESSARY INFORMATI ON AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDING COPIES OF DULY SWORN AFFIDAVITS SIGNED BY MR. ANIL SACHDEVA, SH. SANJAY KHATTAR, SH. PRAKASH SACHDEVA AND MS. BHAWNA NARULA, THE BENEFIC IARIES WHO HAVE PURCHASED DRAFTS AGAINST CASH WAS FURNISHE D. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE BENEFICIARIES MS. BHAWNA NARULA. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ON OATH WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED ALL THE FACTS CORRE CTLY. HOWEVER, NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT(A) HAS CO NSIDERED THIS IMPORTANT DOCUMENT OF VITAL IMPORTANCE. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF MR.PRAKASH SACHDEVA CONFIRMED THE ADDITION PERTAINING TO MR. ANIL RS.3, 00,000/- MR. SANJAY KHATTAR RS.2,50,000/- AND MS. BHAWNA NARULA RS.13,60,000/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS CORRECTLY AND WITHOUT PROVID ING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PERSONS, WHO HAVE DEVIATED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS, HAD SUSTAINED THE A DDITION MERELY PAGE | 9 ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. FURTHER THE REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT HAS NOT BEEN PRO PERLY CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED. 9. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE STATEMENTS OF CERTAIN PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE ST ATEMENTS OF THOSE PERSONS ON OATH THEY FLATLY DENIED TO HAVE MA DE THE CASH DEPOSITS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCO UNT. THEREFORE, WHEN THE PERSONS HAVE DENIED TO HAVE MAD E SUCH CASH DEPOSITS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CORRECTLY SUSTAIN ED THE ADDITION OF RS.19,85,000/-MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BEING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FACT SHOULD BE UPHELD. 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND LD.CIT(A) A ND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.26,65,0 00/- BEING THE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND AND THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . I FIND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 23.12.2016 RESTORED THE I SSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. I FIND THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES SO FILED BEFORE HIM AND FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER PAGE | 10 FOR HIS COMMENTS AND A REMAND REPORT. I FIND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,80,000/- BEING THE AMOUNT GIVEN B Y SH. PRAKASH. HOWEVER, HE SUSTAINED THE BALANCE ADDITION , THE REASON OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) S HOWS THAT SH. ANIL SACHDEVA IN HIS STATEMENT HAD CLEARLY STAT ED THAT HE HAD NEVER SIGNED THE AFFIDAVIT NOR HAS GIVEN RS.3 L ACS FOR GETTING THE DEMAND DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF M/S. HUNDAI MOTORS LT D. FURTHER PAN NUMBER GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO INCORRECT. SIMILARLY SH. SANJAY KHATTAR HAD ALSO STATED THAT NEITHER HE HAS SIGNED THE AFFIDAVIT NOR HAS GIVEN RS.2,50,000/- FOR GETTI NG DEMAND DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SH. SURESH AND CHA KRESH. HE HAD NEVER GIVEN ANY AMOUNT OF RS.2,50,000/- TO SH. PADAM LAL DUA I.E. ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY SUMMON ISSUED TO MS. BHAWNA NARULA WAS RETURNED BACK UNSERVED AND THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE BEING ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE THE SAID PARTY, NEVER PRODUCED MS. BHAWNA NARULA WHO HAS GIVEN AN A MOUNT OF RS.13,60,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED BY HIM . A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS FORGED THE AFFIDAVIT OF SH. ANIL SACHDEVA AND SH. SANJAY KHATT AR AND FAILED TO PRODUCE MS. BHAWNA NARULA BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER DESPITE BEING GIVEN OPPORTUNITY BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS NOT GIVEN FALLS FLAT ESPECIALLY WHEN THE TWO PERSONS HAVE STA TED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON OATH THAT NEITHER THEY HAVE SI GNED THE PAGE | 11 AFFIDAVIT NOR HAVE GIVEN ANY SUCH AMOUNT TO THE ASS ESSEE. SIMILARLY MS. BHAWNA NARULA WAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECORDING HER STATEMENT DESPI TE BEING ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO SO SINCE THE S UMMON ISSUED TO HER WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE SOURCE OF THE B ALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.75000/- I.E. (1985000 -19,10,000 I.E. (3,00,000+250000+13,60,000). UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE I FIND THAT NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.09.2019. SD/- (R.K PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:- 26.09.2019 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI PAGE | 12 DATE OF DICTATION 27.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 26.09.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 27.09.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER