Sh. Himanshu Jain, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 597/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8975 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH CHADHA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Document seized; Source of fund; Documents seized
• Section: 133A; 153A; 234B; 69; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 597 TO 599/CHD/2015 A.YS: 2006-07 TO 2008-09 SHRI HIMANSHU JAIN, VS THE DCIT, # 1133, SECTOR 21-B, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ADUPJ7267R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHISH CHADHA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM ALL THE APPEALS BY SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) GURGAO N DATED 18.03.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, 2007- 08 AND 2008-09. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BEL OW. COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS, THEREFORE, ALL APPEALS ARE DECIDED THROUGH THIS COM MON CONSOLIDATED ORDER AS UNDER. 2 ITA 597/2015 ( A.Y. 2006-07) 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL. THESE ARE, THERE FORE, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. IN THE REMAINING GROUNDS, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED TH E ADDITIONS OF RS. 21,31,500/- AND RS. 14,62,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 26.05.2011 AT THE RESIDENTIAL/BUSINESS PREMISES OF IND-SWIFT GROUP OF CASES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE BY INVESTIGATION WING, CHANDIGARH. VARIOUS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND COPIES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FINALIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENTS. THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN IND-SWIFT GROUP OF COMPANIES. THE ASSE SSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS . 50,92,007/- UNDER SECTION 139(1) AS WELL AS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CALLING EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE A ND MATERIAL ON RECORD, PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO DOCUMENT PAGE 28, 3 ANNEXURE A-10 PREMISES CODE R-6 AND DIARY OF CALEND AR YEAR 2005-06 AND NOTED THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS A DIAR Y OF CALENDAR YEAR 2005-06. ON PAGE NO. 28 OF THIS DOCUMENT, THERE IS A MENTION OF CASH TRANSACTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 21.315 LACS ON 30.05.2005. THE DE TAIL OF TRANSACTION IS TABULATED AT PAGE 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAI N THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. THE ASSE SSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT FIGURE OF 2 1.315 LACS PERTAINS TO TRANSACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH LA ND AT SHATABGARH. IT COMPRISED OF AMOUNT OF RS. 12.97 LA CS PAID IN CASH ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE TO VARIOUS PARTIES, R S. 1.84 LACS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES INCU RRED IN CASH WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6.50 LACS REPRESENTS CASH RECEIVED FROM MR. C.D.SINGLA, THE CO-OWNER OF THESE PROPERTIES FOR PURCHASE OF THIS LAND AT SHATABGARH, TEHSIL DERRABASI, DISTRICT SAS. THE ABOVESAID LAND WAS PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE JOINTLY WITH SHRI C.D.SINGLA OF PANCHKULA IN EQUAL PARTNERSHIP IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACI TY OUT OF EARNINGS AND SAVINGS. ADVANCE WAS PAID AGAINST THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND CASE IS PENDING IN THE COURT. 5(I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE IS INADEQUATE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FUN DS FOR PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REPLY DID NOT MENTION SOURCE OF THE FUNDS USED TO MAKE TH E ABOVESAID EXPENSES/INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T FILED ANY CASH-FLOW STATEMENT NOR HAS SUPPORTED THE SAME BY 4 MATCHING THE PAYMENT WITH ANY WITHDRAWALS FROM ANY BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDEN CE OF ANY INVESTMENT MADE JOINTLY WITH SHRI C.D.SINGLA AN D NO PROOF OF MONEY CONTRIBUTED BY SHRI C.D.SINGLA HAS B EEN FILED. THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, ASKED TO EXPLA IN AS TO WHY THE SAME BE NOT ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE REITERAT ED THE SAME FACTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE MERELY EXPLAI NED THAT HE BELONGS TO RENOWNED BUSINESS FAMILY AND HE HAS A CCESS TO CASH OF HIS FAMILY. HOWEVER, SAME EXPLANATION W AS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY EVIDENCE. AS REGARDS THE AMOU NT RECEIVED FROM SHRI C.D.SINGLA, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FUR NISHED ANY EVIDENCE OF PARTNERSHIP WITH SHRI C.D.SINGLA AN D NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR SOURCE OF FUNDS OF SHRI C.D .SINGLA HAVE BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPL AIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS USED TO MAKE ABOVESAID EXPENSES/INVESTMENTS AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 21,31,5 00/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE A CT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL BECAUSE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF EXPLAINING ENTRIES IN DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM HIS RESIDENCE. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REFERRED TO DOCUMENT ANNEXURE A-6 PREMISES CODE R-6 WHICH IS COPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL PERTAINING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 -06 5 AND 2006-07. THESE DOCUMENTS PERTAIN TO LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AT VILLAGE SHATABGARH. T HESE DOCUMENTS SHOW ADVANCE PAYMENT MADE IN EACH CASE TO THE SELLER. THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. 2006-07 HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZED AT PAGE 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTAINING DETAILS O F UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN A SUM OF RS. 14,62,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THESE TRANSACTIONS/SALE AGREEMENT WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE AND TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS PERTAIN TO ADVANCES MADE TO VARIOUS PERSONS FOR PURCHASE OF LA ND AT VILLAGE SHATABGARH AND LAND HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY JOINTLY IN EQUA L SHARE WITH SHRI C.D.SINGLA AND PAYMENTS IN CASH HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF EARNINGS AND SAVINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXP LAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTIES AND NO EVIDENCE OF CONTRIBUTION MADE BY SHRI C.D.SINGLA OR ANY PARTNERSHIP HAVE BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THESE ADVANCES OF RS. 14.62 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECT ION 69 OF THE ACT. 7. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED BOTH THE ADDITIONS BEFOR E LD. CIT(APPEALS). WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, CONFIRMED BOTH THE ADDITIONS AND 6 DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE MADE MERE ASSERTIONS WITHO UT ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE THEREFORE, ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED. ITA 598/2015 ( A.Y. 2007-08 ) 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL. SAME ARE DISMISS ED BEING NOT PRESSED. 9. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS. 25,90,000/- ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AND CHARGING OF INTEREST UN DER SECTION 234A, B & C OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH, SEIZED DOCUMENT ANNEXURE A-6, PREMISES CODE R-6 WAS FOUND WHICH IS AGREEMENT TO SELL FOR PURCHA SE OF PROPERTY AT SHATABGARH. THIS IS THE SAME DOCUME NT ON WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 14.62 LACS IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. I N THE SAME DOCUMENT, THE ENTRIES OF ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL 2007-08 ARE ALSO MENTIONED WHICH ARE I N RESPECT OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUMMARY OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 2-3 OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF THESE INVESTMENTS. ASSESSEE, SIMILARLY EXPLAINED T HAT INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PROPERTIES BY MAK ING ADVANCES AND LAND HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESS EE 7 JOINTLY WITH SHRI C.D.SINGLA AND PAYMENT IN CASH HA VE BEEN MADE OUT OF EARNINGS AND SAVINGS. THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BECAUSE NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF INVEST MENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES. 9(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION AND DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA 599/2015 ( A.Y. 2008-09 ) 10. IN THIS APPEAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE, SAME ARE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. ON REMAINING GROUNDS, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,26,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AN D CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, B & C OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ANNEXURE A-1 PAGES 95-96 PARTY R- 6. THIS DOCUMENT IS AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 25.08.2007 BETWEEN MR. ELIAS S/O SHARIF AND THE ASSESSEE FOR R S. 22,52,212/- IN RESPECT OF LAND MEASURING 3.539 HECT ARES AT VILLAGE BALHERA, MUZZAFFARNAGAR. THIS DOCUMENT I S SIGNED BY THE SELLER AND THE PURCHASER (ASSESSEE). AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LACS HAS BEE N STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT I .E. 25.08.2007 AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 8 18,52,212/- HAS BEEN AGREED TO BE PAID BY 23.11.200 7. THE SEIZED AGREEMENT IS SCANNED AND REPRODUCED IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAI N WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHETHER THESE PAYMENTS HAVE DULY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN ED THAT THIS AGREEMENT WAS FOR PROPERTY SITUATED AT VI LLAGE BALHERA. THIS AGREEMENT WAS INITIALLY FOR RS. 15 L ACS ON THE MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PARTY AND THE ASSESSEE. BUT, AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE AGREEMEN T, PARTIES REFUSED TO ACCEPT RS. 15 LACS AND BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED FOR RS. 22,52,212/- FOR THE SAME ARE A OF LAND WHICH COULD BE CONFIRMED FROM THE SEIZED AGREEMENT. AT THE TIME OF REGISTRY, SELLER PARTY A GAIN CREATED A SCENE TO AVOID REGISTRATION OF THE SALE D EED BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS KEEN TO BUY THIS LAND AND FINA LLY 3.539 HECTARES OF LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE BALHERA WAS GOT REGISTERED FOR RS. 25 LACS AND RS. 2,26,000/- W ERE PAID AS STAMP DUTY AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION. THI S ENTIRE AMOUNT ALONGWITH STAMP DUTY WAS PAID IN CASH OUT OF EARNINGS AND SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. COPY OF THE SALE DEED WAS FIL ED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HO WEVER, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, THEREFORE, CALLED FOR EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WHY ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BE NOT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. 9 10(I) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED SAME SUBMISSION THAT HE HAS INVESTED MONEY OUT OF SAVINGS, EARNINGS AND GIF TS RECEIVED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOUR CE OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 27,26,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 11. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SEIZED DOCUME NTS REFERRED TO ABOVE IN ALL THE THREE YEARS WERE SEIZE D DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS RESIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BEING INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN VARIOUS PROPERTIES AS PER DETAILS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDERS WHICH WERE BASED UPON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF INVESTMENT S IN ALL THE PROPERTIES. SECTION 292C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : 10 292C. [(1)] WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS , MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THI NG ARE OR IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE O F A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 [OR SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A ], IT MAY, IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, BE PRESUMED (I) THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MO NEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BELONG OR BELONGS T O SUCH PERSON; (II) THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE; AND (III) THAT THE SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF SU CH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY, OR TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF, ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, ARE IN THAT PERSONS HANDWRITING, AND IN THE CASE OF A DOCUMENT STAMPED, EXECUTED OR ATTESTE D, THAT IT WAS DULY STAMPED AND EXECUTED OR ATTESTED BY THE PERSON BY WHOM IT P URPORTS TO HAVE BEEN SO EXECUTED OR ATTESTED.] [(2) WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE REQUISITIONING OFFICER IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132A , THEN, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL APP LY AS IF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS WHICH H AD BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY FROM THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C), AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 132A , HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THAT PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UN DER SECTION 132 .] 13. ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UND ER SECTION 292C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHEN THE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNDER SECT ION 132 OF THE ACT, IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT SUCH DOCU MENT BELONGS TO ASSESSEE AND CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT AR E TRUE. THE BURDEN WOULD BE UPON ASSESSEE TO REBUT S UCH PRESUMPTION UNDER THE LAW BY ADDUCING THE EXPLANATI ON SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CAS E, 11 THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT FAILED T O EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN PROPE RTIES WHICH ARE REFERRED TO IN VARIOUS SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE IN FIRST TWO YEARS, EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTIES JOINTLY WITH SHRI C.D.SING LA AND HE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTI ES OUT OF EARNINGS AND SAVINGS OF PAST. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EARNING OR SAVINGS OF THE PAST WERE FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CONTRIBUTION MADE BY SHRI C.D.SINGLA IN PARTNERSHIP HAS BEEN FILED. THE ASSESSEE, THUS, FAILED TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN ANY OF THE PROPERTIES REFE RRED TO IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHE R SUBSTANTIATED WITH THE CASH-FLOW STATEMENT NOR SUPPORTED THE SAME BY MATCHING THE PAYMENTS WITH AN Y WITHDRAWALS FROM ANY OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINE D BY ASSESSEE OR FROM ANY SAVINGS. THE ASSESSEE MERE LY EXPLAINED THAT SINCE HE BELONGS TO RENOWNED BUSINES S FAMILY, THEREFORE, HE HAS ACCESS TO THE CASH BUT NO EVIDENCE OF AVAILABILITY OF ANY CASH WITH HIM HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SECTION 292C READ WITH SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THUS, CLEARLY APPL Y IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE MADE UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASE OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES AS PE R SEIZED DOCUMENT. 12 13(I) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED TO HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PURCH ASE PROPERTY AT VILLAGE BALHERA, MUZZAFFARNAGAR AND SIG NED AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED FOR RS. 25 LACS AND REGISTRATION CHARGES H AVE BEEN PAID OF RS. 2,26,000/- BUT AGAIN ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE O F THIS PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE MERELY EXPLAINED THAT H E HAS INVESTED THE MONEY IN THIS PROPERTY OUT OF SAVINGS, EARNINGS AND GIFTS RECEIVED FROM TIME TO TIME BUT N O SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVED BY ANY EVIDE NCE. MERE EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD , WOULD NOT PROVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, MERE ASSERTION BY ASSESSEE BEFORE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW WOULD NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS UPON HIM TO REBU T THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 292C OF THE INCOME TA X ACT. 13(II) IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT AFTER FIXATI ON OF THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR HEARING ON ME RITS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT SEVERAL ADJOURNMENTS ON THE REASON TO FILE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BY FILING PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, TILL DATE, NO PAPER BOOK OR DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED ON RECORD I N SUPPORT OF ANY OF THE EXPLANATION RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVI DENCE 13 OR MATERIAL ON RECORD, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. AL L THE ADDITIONS ON MERIT IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDE R APPEAL ARE CONFIRMED AND THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 14. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE ON CHARGING OF THE INTEREST WHICH IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD