Ishwar Kumar Aggarwal, Rewari V. ITO, Rewari

ITA 572/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1082 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2009
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SINHA
• Keywords: Gift; Accommodation entries; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 131; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI D.R.SINGH, JM AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM ITA NO.572/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI ISHWAR KUMAR, PROP. M/S SUNIL IRON & MACHINERY STORE, JEEWALI BAZAR, REWARI, HARYANA. PAN NO.AATPA0831E. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, REWARI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.573/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI GOPAL CHAND, PROP. M/S RAHUL PIPES, KANOD GATE, REWARI, HARYANA. PAN NO.AATPA0839N. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, REWARI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS). RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K.SINHA, DR. ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA, AM : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 5.12.2008 FOR AY 2004-05, IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PA SSED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IN BOTH THES E APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNTS ARE DIFFERENT. THE SAME READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), ROHTAK HAS ERRED IN UP HOLDING THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE AO, WARD-1, REWARI U/S 148 BY D ISMISSING THE ITA-572 & 573/D/2009 2 PLEA OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING FINDINGS U/S 147 FO R INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), ROHTAK FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE GIFT OF RS.450000/- OF TWO PERSONS I. E. RS.250000/- OF SH. BHARAT BHUSHAN AND RS.200000/- OF SH.CHETAN PAR KASH. FURTHER HE HAS ERRED IN IGNORING ALL THE FACTS, DOCUMENTS, IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD MADE THE GIFTS I.E. DONORS. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), ROHTAK HAS ALSO ERRED I N UPHOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF P ROVING THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS TRAN SACTIONS WHILE ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS I.E. AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONOR, GIFT DEED, INCOME TAX AND WEALTH TAX VERSIONS OF THE DONOR. 3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PLACED ON RECORD AND THE CO NTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED DR. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A LEGAL GROUND WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF REOPENING U/S 147. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES, WE FOUND THAT IN BOTH THE CASES, THE AO HAD DEFINITE INFORMATION IN HIS P OSSESSION AS TO THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF GIFTS. THE RE ASONS SO RECORDED CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. ACC ORDINGLY, THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE CLEARLY FULFILLED. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDERS O F LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH REGARD TO INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147. ON MERITS, WE F OUND THAT DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN GIFT FROM SHRI BHARAT BHUSHAN AND SHRI CHETAN PRAKASH, RESIDENT OF DIFFER ENT PLACES OF DELHI BUT THE DD IN RESPECT OF GIFT AMOUNT WAS ISSUED FROM THE SAME BANK ON 19.7.2003 FROM SBBJ, NEW ROHTAK ROAD, NEW DELHI. ON THE ENQUIRIES CONDU CTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, IT WAS FOUND THAT THESE PERSONS WERE HIRED BY SHRI MAHESH GARG, NATIVE OF BHIWANI FOR GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IT WAS O BSERVED THAT THESE PERSONS WERE PETTY EMPLOYEES AND THEY HAD NOT GIVEN ANY GIF TS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT DONOR SHRI BHARAT BHUSHAN AND SH RI CHETAN PARKASH WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXAMINATION INSPITE OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN ITA-572 & 573/D/2009 3 BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD. EVEN THE SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131 ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE GIFT DEED AS WELL AS IN THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE SE PERSONS WERE RECEIVED BACK WITH THE REMARKS NO SUCH PERSONS AT THIS ADDRESS AND NO SUCH PERSON. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE A O TO THE EFFECT THAT NEITHER IDENTITY OF DONORS NOR THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ESTABLISHED. SIMILAR FINDING WAS RECORDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF GIFT RECEIVED BY GOPAL CHAND, PROP. OF M/S RAHUL PIPES WHEREIN GIFTS RECEIVED FROM DONORS SHRI AJAY BANSAL AND SHRI MUKESH KUMAR GARG WERE NOT PROVED. BOTH THESE DONORS WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION INSPITE OF SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE AO. EVEN THE SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131 ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE GIFT DEED AS WELL AS IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF THESE PERSONS WERE R ECEIVED BACK WITH THE REMARKS NO SUCH PERSONS AT THIS ADDRESS. ACCORDINGLY, TH E CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO TO THE EFFECT THAT NEITHER IDENTITY NOR G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ESTABLISHED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GI FTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE CASES. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (D.R.SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 06.11.2009. VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITA-572 & 573/D/2009 4