Jitendra Singh, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 604/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 60423714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARE BEING DISPOSED OF
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Source of fund

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.604 TO 606/LKW/2014 A.YRS.:2003 - 04 TO 2005 - 06 SHRI JITENDRA SINGH, G - 144, VIKAS PURI, NEW DELHI. PAN:AFFPR8194E VS A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - I, KANPUR ALL DATED 22/04/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2005 - 06 . ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND ON EACH OF SUCH OCCASION S , LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE MADE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED AS PER THE DETAILS BELOW: DATE OF HEARING ADJOURNED TO ------------------- ---------------- 26/08/2014 29/10/2014 16/02/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/04/2015 24/04/2015 11/06/2015 11/06/2 015 23/07/2015 APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI T. P. SINGH, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 23/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /0 8 /2015 2 3. ON THIS DATE I.E. ON 23/07/2015 . NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. CONSIDERING THIS FACT THAT THE ADJOURNMENT WAS ALREADY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON EACH OF SUCH OCCASION S ON SOME PRETEXT OR OTHER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR GRANTING ANY FURTHER ADJOURNMENT, THAT TOO WITHOUT EVEN A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE OR LEARNED A.R. OF THE AS SESSEE. HENCE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) I N ALL THE THREE APPEALS. 5. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 IN I.T.A. NO.60 4/LKW/2014. IN THIS APPEAL , THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A), KANPUR, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WHILE DISBELIEVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE DISCOVERED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A), HAS HIMSELF DELETED CERTAIN OTHER ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, WHERE THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL DISCOVERED DURING SEARCH OPER ATION. 2. BECAUSE THE LD.CIT(A), KANPUR, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT, FROM HIS SISTER, DESPITE CREDIBLE EVIDENCES BEEN PLACED ON RECORD ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS. FURTHER THIS ADDITION IS MADE WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BEING DISCOVERED DURING SEARCH. 3. BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT BY 3 FIL ING REQUISITE EVIDENCES AND THE FACT THAT GIFT IS RECEIVED FROM A RELATIVE, WHICH FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED OR DISBELIEVED. 4. BECAUSE THE LD.CIT (A), KANPUR, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 68, RESTING HIS DECISIONS ON UNSOUND REASONS WHICH ARE RATHER ARBITRARY, CONTRARY TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 5. BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A), ON THIS COUNT IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMIS SIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 7.2.11 TO 7.2.14 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRO DUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - 7.2.11 IN THE GARB OF GIFTS, THE ASSESSEE IS THUS INTRODUCING HIS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY, IT IS COMMON PLACE OBSERVATION THAT IN THE PRESENT MATERIALISTIC SOCIETY, NO STRANGERS WOULD HAVE SUCH INSTINCTS TO MAKE SUCH HUGE GIFTS TO SUCH STRANGERS WHO ARE UNKNOWN TO EACH OTHER, AS, THE DONEES ARE NOT DEITY OR SUCH PUBLIC OR SPIRITUAL PERSONALITY INSPIRING REVERENCE, VENERATION OR PERSONAL ESTEEM, TO INSPIRE THE STRANGERS, TO ACT AS A DONOR AND SHOWER BOUNTY OF GIFTS ON SUCH DONEES. THERE IS PATENTLY A LACK OF BLOOD FAMILY RELATIONSHIP AND ALSO OR ABSENCE OF OCCASION, FOR MAKING SUCH GIFTS AND HENCE SUCH CONSIDERATIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND CORROBORATIVE CONSIDERATIONS, CLEARLY POINTING TO THE NON - GENUINENESS OF T HE GIFT TRANSACTIONS. 7.2.12 I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS & IN TIGHT OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY ME & ALSO IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON, I FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE GIFT WAS MADE BY UNRELATED DONOR TO THE ASSESSEE (CLAIMED TO BE COUSIN SISTER BUT NO EVIDENCE OF RELATIONSHIP ON RECORD. FURTHER IN PUNJABIS IT IS CONSIDERED AN IMMORALITY TO TAKE MONEY FROM SISTER.) THERE WAS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DONOR AND NO OCCAS ION WAS ALSO SPECIFIED FOR MAKING THE GIFTS. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED DURING APPEAL PROCEEDING TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED GIFT. THE AO HAS ESTABLISHED THAT 4 THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS OF GIFTS ARE NON - GENUINE A PURELY ARRANGED ENTRIES. TH IS ASPECT REMAINS UNCONRROVERTED BEFORE ME ALSO. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH CHANDER SEKHRI V DCIT (2007) 290 TR 300 (P&H) THAT : IN THE ABSENCE OF NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ALLEGED GIFTS WERE RECEIVED ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE IN FAMILY OR OTHER HAPPY OCCASIONS, FROM RELATIVES, THE TRIBUNAL'S FINDINGS IN CONFIRMING SUCH ADDITIONS CANNOT BE HELD AS PE RV ERSE. 7.2.13 UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE INFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT GIFT IS BOGUS IS QUITE COGENT ENOUGH. 7.2.14 THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O, IN THIS REGARD IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED . 6.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT A CLEAR AND CATEGORICAL FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY HIM THAT THE GIFT WAS STATED TO BE MADE BY AN UNRELATED DO NOR OF THE ASSESSEE (CLAIMED TO BE COUSIN SISTER) BUT NO EVIDENCE OF RELATIONSHIP IS BROUGHT ON RECORD. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT IN PUNJABIS , IT IS CONSIDERED AN IMMORALITY TO TAKE MONEY FROM SISTER. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT T HERE WAS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DONOR AND NO OCCASION WAS ALSO SPECIFIED FOR MAKING THE GIFTS. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT N O EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED DURING APPEAL PROCEEDING TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED DONOR . HENCE, WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IS ON VARIOUS BASIS SUCH AS, NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE ASSESSEE DON NE E AND EVEN IF THERE IS RELATION , THEN IT IS CONSIDERED IMMORALITY TO TAKE MONEY FROM SISTER AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE THIRD BASIS IS THAT TH ERE IS NO OCCASION ALSO FOR MAKING THE GIFT. THE FOURTH BASIS IS THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR IS NOT ESTABLISHED. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5 8. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 IN I.T.A. NO.605/LKW/2014. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A), KANPUR, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WHILE DISBELIEVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE DISCOVERED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A), HAS HI MSELF DELETED CERTAIN OTHER ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, WHERE THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL DISCOVERED DURING SEARCH OPERATION. 2. BECAUSE THE LD.CIT(A), KANPUR, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM HIS SISTER DESPITE CREDIBLE EVIDENCES BEEN PLACED ON RECORD ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS. FURTHER THIS ADDITION IS MADE WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BEING DISCOVERED DURI NG SEARCH. 3. BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT BY FILING REQUISITE EVIDENCES AND THE FACT THAT GIFT IS RECEIVED FROM A RELATIVE, WHICH FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED OR DISBELIEVED. 4. BECAUSE THE LD.CIT(A), KANPUR, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 68, RESTING HIS DECISIONS ON UNSOUND REASONS WHICH ARE RATHER ARBITRARY, CONTRARY TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 5. BECAUSE T HE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), ON THIS COUNT IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 9. WE FIND THAT IN THIS YEAR ALSO, THE FACTS AND DECISION OF CIT(A) ARE IDENTICAL AND IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 7.2.12 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE GIFT IS STATED TO BE MADE BY UNRELATED DONOR TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DONOR AND NO OCCASION WAS ALSO SPECIFIED FOR MAKING THE GIFTS. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS 6 OF THE DONOR. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT YEAR ARE IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE, IN LINE WITH OUR DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 200 4 - 05 ALSO. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 11. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN I.T.A. NO.606/LKW/2014. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A), KANPUR, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE 'PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT' MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING IT AS 'SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT' TOWARDS RS.8,73,,000/ - , AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WITHO UT DULY APPRECIATING THE TRUE AND CORRECT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A), KANPUR, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NO ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS CAN BE MADE, UNLESS THERE IS SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION SOMEWHERE I.E. PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT CANNOT PRECEDE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION AND THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION. 3. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT (A), KANPUR, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THAT REQUISITE SATISFACTION FOR COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C, WITH RESPECT TO THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND BY THE AO, WHICH RELATES TO OTHER PERSON, HAS COMMENCED. HENCE NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BECAUSE THE LD . CIT (A), KANPUR, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE CEASED DOCUMENT, DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THAT THE OTHER PERSON (WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE) HAS OWNED UP THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSETS DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 5. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A), KANPUR, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE AO O F THE OTHER PERSON, FAILED TO TAKE PROPER ACTION, IN THAT CASE, SHOULD THE ADDITION BE SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE RULES OF EQUITY ARE UNKNOWN TO TAX LAWS. 6. BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), ON THIS COUNT IS BAD IN LAW. 1 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE . WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 7 TO 7.2.1 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - 7. GROUND NO.6 TO 7: ADDITION OF RS.8,73,000/ - ON PROTECTIVE BASIS - 7.1 I N THIS REGARD, THE AO IN THE ASSTT. ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT - ON EXAMINATION OF SEIZED PAPERS FROM SERIAL NO. 01 TO 70 CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE A - 1 TO THE PANCHNAMA DATED 01.09.2005, IT I S NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S WIFE SMT. PARDEEP KAUR HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AFORESAID PROPERTY IN ABOVE MENTIONED PREMISE. ON PERUSAL OF COPY OF SEIZED SALE DEED EXECUTE D ON 13.07.2004 THAT SMT PRADEEP KAUR HAD PURCHASED THE SAID PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,00, 000 / - . HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF OTHER SEIZED STAMP PAPERS & PAPERS TITLED ' AGREEMENT TO SELL', AFFIDAVIT GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, RECEIPT AND POSSESSION LE TTER SHOWS THAT SMT. PARDEEP KAUR WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE SAID PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,00,000/ - . A 'RECEIPT' SEIZED AT PAGE NO. 10 OF ANNEXURE A - L TO THE PANCHNAMA DATED 01 . 09.2005 CONTAINS FOLLOWING: 'RECEIVED RS . 1,00,000 / - ( ONE LAC ONLY) FROM SHRI JITENDER SINGH S/O SHRI MUKH T AR SINGH R / O G - 144, VIKASPURI, NEW DELHI - 110 01 8 AGAINST THE SA L E OF BASEMENT AREA OF A - 111, SHANKAR GARDEN NEW DELHI - 110 018 MEASURING AREA 200 SQ. YEARS. TOTAL DEAL SETTLED RS . 8,61,000 / - (EIGHT LAC SIXTY ONE THOUSAND ONLY ). NOW THE BALANCE RS.7,61,000 / - ( SEVEN LACS SIXTY ONE THOUSANDS ONLY) WILL BE PAID ON OR BEFORE 07 . 05 . 2004.' 8 AS EVIDENT FROM THE LANGUAGE OF 'RECEIPT', IT IS CLEAR THAT SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS RS.8,6 1 ,000 / - AND ASSESSES HAS GIVEN AN ADVANCE OF RS.7,00 , 000 / - TO VENDOR SHRI S P CHOPRA. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE STATEMENT OF SM T . PARDEEP KAUR, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON 01.09 . 2005 . IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO . 04 OF STATEMENT, REGARDING INVESTMENT I N IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OWNED BY SMT. PARDEEP KAUR, IT AFFIRMED BY HER THAT SHE HAD PURCHASED ONE PROPERTY AT BASEMENT OF A - 111, SHANKAR GARDEN, NEW DELHI ABOUT 2 YEARS BACK FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS . 2,00,000 / - . HOWEVER, WHEN CONFRONTED IN QUESTION NO. 10, WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT OF RS. 8,61 LACS OUT OF WHICH 1 LAC WAS PAID AS ADVANCE MONEY, SHE HAD OFFERED NO COMMENTS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, IT BECOME CLEAR THAT SMT . PARDEEP KAUR IS OWNER OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT A - 111, SHANKAR GARDEN, NEW DELHI AND AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IS RS . 8,67,000 / - AS AGA I NS T RS.2,00,000 / - AS STATED BY HER IN RESPONSE TO QUEST I ON NO. 04 . IT IS GATHERED FROM PERUSAL OF COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET/STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF SM T . PARDEEP KAUR FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 - 05 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSES, THAT SHE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY INVESTMENT UNDER THIS HEAD. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS . 1,00,000 / - GIVEN AS ADVANCE BY THE ASS ESSEE TO THE VENDOR AND REMAINING INVESTMENT OF RS. 7.61 LACS IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT BASEMENT OF A - 111, SHANKAR GARDEN, NEW DELHI. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY STATING THEREIN THAT TOTAL CONSIDERATION AMOUNT WAS FIXED AT RS. 5 LACS AND WAS INCL USIVE OF FURNITURE & FIXTURE. THE RECEIPT OF RS. 8,61,000 / - SEIZED LOOSE PAPER DOES NOT BELONG TO US AND FURTHER STATED THAT WE HAVE NO CONCERN/DEALING WITH MRS. S. P. CHOPRA. IT IS A L SO CONTENDED IN THE REPLY THAT THIS RECEIPT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO SHRI JITE NDER SINGH S/O SHRI MUKH T AR SINGH. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENT I ON HAS NO T ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF THE FAC T THAT RECEIPT WAS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY NO. A - 111 SHANKAR GARDEN, VIKASPURI AND ALSO THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 13.07.2004 WAS A/SO IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY NO. A - 111 SHANKAR GARDEN MEANING THEREBY THAT TRANSACTION WAS IN RESPECT OF SAME PROPERTY. IT IS A L SO NOTICED THAT RECEIPT WAS WRITTEN PRIOR TO DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED. THEREFORE, INVESTMENT OF RS. 8,61,000 / - + RS. 12,000 / - ( COST OF STAMP PAPER ) AGGREG ATING TO RS.8 ,7 3,000/ - IS CONSIDERED TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF SMT . PARDEEP KAUR. SINCE, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE IN VESTMENT OR H I S WIFE, T HEREFORE , I HAVE LEFT WITH NO OPTION TO 9 MAKE ADDITION OF RS. 8,73,000 / - ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF H I S WIFE PARDEEP KAUR. SINCE, SMT. PRADEEP KAUR IS ASSED TO T AX WITH ITO 26(1), NEW DELHI, A REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 153 - C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ..THE ADDITION MADE IS BASED ON WRONG FACTS, ILLEGAL AND PRAYED TO BE DELETED. 7.1.2 IN THIS REGARD THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT ASKED FOR VIDE LETTER DATED 24.08 . 2008 HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: IN REGARDS TO PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS. 8,73, 000/ - IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, YOUR GOODSELF HAS DESIRED TO KNOW THAT WHETHER SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF HIS WIFE AND TO PRESENT STATUS OF THIS SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION. ON PERUSAL OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS FOUND THAT THE AO HAD STATED THAT REFERENCE WAS BEING MADE TO IT0 26(1), NEW DELHI FOR MAKING SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. SMT PRADEEP KAUR. HOWEVER, ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NO SUCH REFERENCE WAS FOUND. HOWEVER, A LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE I TO 26(1), NEW DELHI THE BASIS OF WHATEVER FACTS WERE AVAILABLE ON FILE. THE ITO 26(1), N E W DELHI HAS COMMUNICATED VIDE HIS LETTER DATED F.NO. ITO - 26(I)/13 - 14/296 DATED 27.01.2014 THAT 'APPARENTLY, THE PERSU S A L OF RECORDS DO NOT SPECIFY WHETHER ANY ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE FOR A. V. 2005 - 06 WAS COMPLETED UNDER SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID INFORMATION. 7 2 DISCUSSION: 7.2.1 AS IS CLEAR NO ADDITION WAS MAIN THE HANDS OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE . DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO ESTABLISH SOURCE OF FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE. NO EVIDENCE OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE WAS PROVIDED, THUS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A DOUBLE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE I S UNSUBSTANTIATED . ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT INVESTMENT WAS INDEED MADE BY HIS WIFE OUT OF HER FUNDS. AS NO FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE WITH WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE SHE ONLY BECOMES A NAME LENDER TO THE TRANSACTION. THIS ADDITION IS TREA TED AS SUBSTANTIVE IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE CONFIRMED. 10 12.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT A CATEGORICAL FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF FUND IN THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE BUT NO EVIDENCE OF AV AILABILITY OF FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE WAS PROVIDED AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A DOUBLE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IS UNSUBSTANTIATED. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT INVESTMENT WAS INDEED MADE BY HIS WIFE OUT OF HER FUNDS BECAUSE NO FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE WITH WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE . S HE IS ONLY A NAME LENDER TO THE TRANSACTION AND ON THIS BASIS, THE ADDITION WAS MADE SUBSTANTIVE IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE CONFIRMED THE SAME. CONSIDERING THE FACTS, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND IN VIEW OF CATEGORICAL FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ALSO. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 /0 8 /2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR