SHRI HARPHOOL BHARDWAJ, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFICER, NAKODAR, NAKODAR

ITA 551/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5119 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S M SURENDRANATH
• Keywords: Source of fund; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 551/ASR/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SH. HARPHOOL BHARDWAJ S/O SH. JAGDISH RAM, VILL. SAIDPUR, PO MUDHAN, NAKODAR, DISTT. JALANDHAR [PAN:BCXPB8695L] (ASSESSEE) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR (REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY WRITTEN SUBMISSION REVENUE BY SH. S. M. SURENDRANATH, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 14.09.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.09.2021 ORDER PERLALIET KUMAR, JM: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FEELING AG GRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, JALANDHAR DATED 21.08.2018 FOR A.Y. 2 009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE LD. AO WAS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB-INITIO. THE NOTICES INITIATING THE ASSESSMENT WERE NOT SERVED ON THE AS SESSEE, THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICES AND THE FINAL ASSESSING ORDER WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A NO. 551/ASR/2018 2 2. THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS. 51,17,437/- IN HIS SA VING ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE SOLD HIS AGRICULTURE LAND AND FUR NISHED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF THE AGRICULTUR E LAND. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAN D OF HIS BROTHER. HIS BROTHER SUBMITTED THE TITLE DEEDS OF LAND SALE, CONFIRMATIO N IN THE SHAPE OF OATH AND PERSONALLY DEPOSED BEFORE THE ITO. THE LD. AO IS ST ILL NOT SATISFIED ON THE PRETEXT OF CREDIT WORTHINESS. SO, RESULTANT APPEAL IS FILED . 3. AT THE TIME HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD REQU ESTED AND HAD FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENT ION TO THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, REMAND REPORT AND PARAGRAPHS 4.6 , 4.7, 4.8 AND 4.9 OF THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 4 AND 5 PARA 4.5 HA D MENTIONED AS UNDER: KINDLY REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO. 772 DATED 1 5.05.2018, ON THE SUBJECT CITEDABOVE. 2. IN THIS REGARD AND WITH RESPECT TO FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE ASSESSEEDURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE FOR M OF AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI PRAN NATH, THE ASSESSEE'S BROTHER, AND COPY OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ITSELF BUT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT TURN UP AT ALL BEFORE THE AO, AS SUCH, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE ENTERTAINED AS CONDITION UNDER RULE 46A IS N OT SATISFIED IN THIS CASE HOWEVER, AS DIRECTED, IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE AFFID AVIT OF ASSESSEE'S BROTHER SHRIPRANNATH, A LETTER WAS ISSUED TO HIM ON 06.06.2 018 REQUESTING HIM TO ATTEND THE OFFICE ON 15.06.2018. SHRIPRANNATH ATTENDED THE OFFICE ON 27.06.2018 AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED (COPY ENCLOSED). I.T.A NO. 551/ASR/2018 3 TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS STATED BY SHRIP RANNATH, THE ASSESSEE'S BROTHER, AND AFTER EXAMINING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD , THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS ARE MADE:- I. THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI PRAN NATH REMAINS UNPR OVED AS HE HAD NO SOURCE INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N I.E. F.Y. 2008- 09 (ANS. TO P. NO.4). SO, IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT S HRI PRAN NATH, HAVING SIX FAMILY MEMBERS, AND WITH NO SOURCE OF INCOME, G AVE RS. 25.20 LAKH TO HIS BROTHER. II. SHRI PRAN NATH COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF T RANSACTION AS HE COULD NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE PAID R S. 25.20 LAKH TO HIS BROTHER, THE ASSESSEE. III. SHRI PRAN NATH STATED THAT HE PAID RS. 25.20 LAKH I N CASH TO SHRI HARPHOOL CHAND, THE ASSESSEE, ON 06.05.2008. HOWEVE R, IT IS NOTED FROM SHRI PRAN NATH'S BANK ACCOUNT NO.2001000100069 005, MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, HERAN BRANCH THAT A SUM OF RS.3,00,000/- ON 07.05.2008 AND RS. 6.0 LAKH ON 23. 10.2008 WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THIS ACCOUNT. WHEN ASKED TO EX PLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS (Q.NO.13 OF STATEMENT), SHRI PRAN NA TH STATED THAT HE HAD GIVEN RS. 12.0 LAKH TO SOME TRAVEL AGENT AFTER SELLING HIS LAND FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 12.0 LAKH ON 11.04.2017(COPY O F SALE DEED FILED) TO SEND HIS SON ABROAD. HOWEVER, THE SUM WAS RETURN ED BACK BY THE TRAVEL AGENT IN INSTALLMENTS AND HE DEPOSITED THE S AME IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. SHRI PRAN NATH, HOWEVER, COULD NOT FILE AN Y EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE HAD GIVEN RS. 12.0 LAKH TO TRAVEL AGENT AND THAT HE DEPOSITED THE INSTALLMENTS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT HE HAD RECEIVED RS. 25.20 LAKH FROM HIS BROTHER SHRIPRANNATH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT, WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS BROTHER NAMELY SH. PRAN NATH. SAID SH PRAN NATH HAD SOLD LAND ON 06.05.2008. IT WAS ALSO THE CONTENTION THE LD. DR T HAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO E STABLISH THAT THE MONEY OF I.T.A NO. 551/ASR/2018 4 RS.25,20,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HI S BROTHER . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PRAN NATH WAS HAVING ANY CREDIT WORT HINESS AND FURTHER IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON OF LIMITED MEANS NAMELY S H. PRAN NATH TO ADVANCE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 25,20,000/- TO THE APPELLANT. THER EFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) WERE IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS SUBMITTED IS AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE IS A NON RESIDENT INDIAN HAVING PASSP ORT OF NETHERLANDS. DURING THE YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS. 51.17 LACS IN H IS SAVING ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH CENTURIAN BANK OF PUNJAB LIMITED (NOW HDFC BANK) WI TH JALANDHAR ROAD, NAKODAR BRANCH. UPON THE RECEIPT OF AIR INFORMATION, THE LD . AO PROCEEDED WITH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SEC TION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THIS HAS RESULTED IN APPEALS: FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL: THE APPEAL WAS PREFERRED IN THE COURT OF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN WAS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS ARBITRARY, ILLOGICAL, ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND NEED TO BE SET ASIDE. SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE HONORABLE CIT (A): 1. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE ASSESSEE ARE ILLE GAL, BAD IN LAW AND VOID ABINITIO: A. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S FOREIGN CITIZEN. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 W ERE NEVER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. SERVICE OF NOTICE IS THE PRE-REQUISITE FOR INITIATI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EVEN THE FINAL OPPORTUNITY AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE PAS SED WITHOUT THE BOTHERING THE BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT THE NOTICES ARE NOT BEING SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF THE PASSPORT IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. B. THE LD. AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ALL T HE NOTICES ARE BEING RECEIVED BACK. ALL THE NOTICES SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST WERE RETUR NED WITH A REMARK THAT ASSESSEE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE NOTICE. THE LD. AO NEVER BOTH ERED TO OBTAIN THE FACTUAL POSITION BY SENDING ANY FIELD OFFICER AT THE KNOWN ADDRESS THAT WHY OR WHO IS REFUSING THE INCOME TAX I.T.A NO. 551/ASR/2018 5 NOTICES. SO, IN THIS CASE, THE LD. AO, FAILED TO DI SCHARGE HIS DUTY VIGILANTLY. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN INDIA AND ALSO HE NEVER AUTHORIZED ANY B ODY TO RECEIVE ANY NOTICE ON HIS BEHALF. IF THE NOTICES WERE SERVED ON ANY UNAUTHORI ZED PERSON EVEN THEN IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROPER SERVICE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE R ELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE RATIO OF JUDGEMENT OF PASSED BY ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN A RECENT CASE OF SH. OM PARKASH KUKREJA VS DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX ON APRIL 08, 20 16. THE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. C. ANY REGISTERED POST SENT THROUGH POST NEEDS TO BE S ERVED ON THE PERSON HIMSELF OR ON ANY AUTHORIZED PERSON IN THIS REGARD. THE POSTMAN HAS A LSO GIVEN THE REMARK THAT THE ASSESSEE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE NOTICE. THEN ITBECOM ES THE NECESSITY THAT THE POSTMAN SHOULD BE SUMMONED IN YOUR COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE SO THAT THE FACTS SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO FILE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E. D. YOUR HONOR, ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WIL L NOTICE THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE STARTED ON 03/03/2016 THROUGH AFFI XTURE OF NOTICE. THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON 20/06/2016 AND 12/08/2016 TH AT WERE NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE FINAL OPPORTUNITY NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 20/08/2016 THAT WAS AFTER A GAP OF TWO MONTHS ONLY. EVENTUALLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COM PLETED ON 30/09/2016 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. YOUR HONOR, WHAT WAS THE HASTE OF FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT. IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TO BE FRAMED UNDER SECTI ON 144 OF THE ACT AND ALL THE INFORMATION IN POSSESSION IS TO BE TAXED THEN WHY T O MAKE SUCH HASTE. THIS TYPE OF ORDER COULD HAVE BEEN PASSED AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR. THE LD AO COULD HAVE GONE FURTHER IN TO HIS ENQUIRIES BY OBTAINING FIELD INQUIRY. THE REPORT FR OM THE POST MAN WHO RETURNED THE DAK WITH REMARKS REFUSED MUST HAVE BEEN OBTAINED ON THE FILE. YOUR HONOR, WILL APPRECIATE THAT THE TOTAL PROCEEDINGS TOOK ONLY THREE MONTHS T O COMPLETE STARTING FROM JUNE AND THEN CONCLUDED IN SEPTEMBER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSM ENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 144 NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. OBSERVATIONS OF HONORABLE CIT(A): THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS NOT MADE A NY COMMENT ON THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL. THE ISSUE WAS PRESSED UPON AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS, LOGICS AND FACTS BUT THE CIT-(A) DID NOT BOTHER TO GIVE HIS JUDGEMEN T ON THE THIS GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE HONORABLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BEN CH: I.T.A NO. 551/ASR/2018 6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE FILE SH OULD BE RESTORED TO HONORABLE CIT-(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL: THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.51.17 LACS IN HIS SAV ING ACCOUNT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK, THE APPLICATION WAS MADE TO THE HONORABLE CIT -(A) TO ALLOW THE SUBMISSION OF PROOFS AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. THE HONORABLE CIT-(A ) WAS KIND ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE HONORABLE CIT-(A): 1. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS. 51.17 LACS IN HIS SA VING ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HIS ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURE LAND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SUBMITTED THE DOCUMENTS IN THIS REGARD. THE DETAILS OF SALE O F AGRICULTURE LAND WAS AS UNDER: I) SALE OF LAND BY HARPHOOL CHAND ON 28.05.2008 FOR RS . 29,85,000 II) SALE OF LAND BY PRAN NATH ON 06.05.2008 FOR RS. 25 ,20,000 III) SALE OF AND BY HARPHOOL CHAND ON 19.05.2008 FOR R S. 6,75,000 TOTAL AMOUNT RS.61,80,000 2. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SH. PRAN NATH SON OF SH . JAGDISH RAM IS THE REAL BROTHER. THE ID AND ADDRESS PROOF LIKE PAN AND ADHAR ALONG W ITH CONFIRMATION THAT HE PAID THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS AGRICULTURE LAND. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED SH. PRAN NATH BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON OATH BEFORE THE AO. SH.PR AN NATH AGAIN CONFIRMED THAT HE PAID THE AMOUNT TO HIS BROTHER (ASSESSEE) FOR FURTH ER PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. OBSERVATIONS OF HONORABLE CIT(A): THE HONORABLE CIT-(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND RE PORT OF THE LD AO HELD THAT SH. PRAN NATH DID NOT HAVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS TO PAY THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE HONORABLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BEN CH: 1. THE CONTENTIOUS ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WHETHE R THE LENDER (SH. PRAN NATH) HAD THE CREDITWORTHINESS ON THE DATE WHE N HE PAID THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. YOUR HONOR, HOW THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF CASH CREDITOR CAN BE JUDGED? TO MY MIND, HE SHOULD SATIS FY TWO CONDITIONS: I.T.A NO. 551/ASR/2018 7 I) FIRST, HE HAD FUNDS AND HAD THE GENUINE SOURCE THE REOF. II) SECONDLY, HE HAD THE CONVICTION TO PAY THE AMOUNT TO THEASSESSEE. II) THIRDLY HE HAD THE GENUINE REASON FOR MAKING THE PA YMENT.THE CASH CREDITOR HAD RECEIVED FUNDS AGAINST THE SALE O F LAND. HE PAID THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED CONFI RMATIONS AND PROVIDED THE REASONS FOR MAKING THE PAYMENTS. 2. YOUR HONOR, IF I HAVE RS. 100 IN MY POCKET THAT IS PROVEDBEYOND DOUBT THAT I EARNED FROM GENUINE SOURCE AND I PAY IT TO MY BROTH ER AND CONFIRM THAT I HAVE PAID THE AMOUNT. THEN ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS, P ERMUTATIONS, COMBINATIONS OF LD. AO HAS NO VALUE. HERE THE CREDI T WORTHINESS IS THAT I HAD THE MONEY IN MY POCKET AND PAID IT TO MY BROT HER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE AND/OR DELETIONS MAY BE DELETED. 7. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE MONEY DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE RECEIVED FROM HIS BR OTHER, NAMELY SH. PRAN NATH, WHO IN TERMS HAD RECEIVED THE AMOUNT ON ACCOU NT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SALE PROCEEDS. IN SUPPORT OF THAT, THE ASSESSE E HAD ALSO PRODUCED HIS BROTHER WHOSE STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED BY THE A O. 8. THE PERUSAL OF REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED BY THE BENCH. FOR SECTION 68, THE ASSESS EE WAS DUTY-BOUND TO PROVE THE CREDITOR'S CREDITWORTHINESS, GENUINENESS, AND IDENTITY. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE IDENTITY OF SH. PRAN NATH, FROM WH OM THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED THE AMOUNT, CANNOT BE DOUBTED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD I.T.A NO. 551/ASR/2018 8 PRODUCED HIS BROTHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON OATH. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REPORT HAD DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTION AND HAD ALSO DOUBTED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SH. PRAN NATH. IT W AS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT THAT SH. PRAN NATH HAD A BANK ACCOUNT WITH P UNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND HAD A SUM OF RS.3 LAC AS OF 07.05.2008 AND SUM OF R S. 6 LAC WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH ON 23.08.2010. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY SH. PR AN NATH WAS DULY MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND RE PORT (SUPRA), WHEREBY HE STATED THAT THIS SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BACK B Y HIM FROM THE TRAVEL AGENT TO WHOM THE MONEY WAS GIVEN ON EARLIER OCCASI ON FOR SENDING HIS SON ABROAD. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT AS W ELL AS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE WAS THAT THE SUM OF RS.25,20,000/- WERE GIVEN BY THE BROTHER OF SH. PRA N NATH TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY PRAN NATH ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND. IT WAS ALSO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THAT SH. PRAN NATH HAD GIVEN THE A MOUNT OF RS. 12 LAC TO THE TRAVEL AGENT ON 11.04.2017 AFTER SELLING THE LAND. THE QUESTION ARISES, IS IT PROBABLE FOR A PERSON OF LIMITED MEANS, LIKE, IN TH E PRESENT CASE SH. PRAN NATH, WHO HAD SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND INITIA LLY ALLEGEDLY UTILIZED THE AMOUNT FOR SENDING HIS SON ABROAD, IN OUR OPINION S UCH A PERSON WOULD NOT GIVE THE AMOUNT TO HIS BROTHER , RATHER HE WOULD D EPOSIT THE SAME IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT OR UTILISE IT FOR SENDING HIS SON ABRO AD, THEREFORE HIS STATEMENT I.T.A NO. 551/ASR/2018 9 OF SH. PRAN NATH, DOES NOT GIVE CONFIDENCE BEING IN CONGRUENT AND AGAINST THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY AND NORMAL HUMAN C ONDUCT, AS IT IS NOT EXPECTED FROM A PERSON OF LIMITED MEANS TO PROVIDE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURE LAND TO TO HIS BROTHER RAT HER HE SHOULD HAVE UTILIZED THE AMOUNT FOR HIS PURPOSES EITHER FOR SENDING THE SON ABROAD OR FOR REINVESTING THE AMOUNT IN PURCHASING THE AGRICULTUR AL LAND. FURTHER, WE BELIEVE THAT ONCE THE CASH WAS RECEIVED BY THE BROT HER FROM THE TRAVEL AGENT, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR HIM TO GIVE THE CASH AMOU NT TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN BOTH HAVE BANK ACCOUNTS. IN A RESULT THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO ESTABLISH NOT ONLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BUT ALSO THE CRE DIT WORTHINESS OF SH. PRAN NATH. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE EXCEPT SOLE STATEMENT OF THE BROTHER EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFO RE THE COMMISSIONER APPEAL, THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, I T CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS BROT HER.IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO PROVE HIS CASE WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF LAW AND FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SOU RCE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WERE FROM HIS BROT HER.. NO OTHER ISSUE HAS BEEN PRESSED BEFORE US, THOUGH SOME ARE ARGUMENTS W ERE MENTIONED IN RESPECT OF GROUND ONE BEFORE US HOWEVER THE SAME WA S FOUND TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE; THE REFORE, THE GROUND NO. ONE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. I.T.A NO. 551/ASR/2018 10 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/09/2021. SD/- SD/- (DR. M.L. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER DATED 16/09/2021 *GP/SR. P.S.* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER