Reena Jain, Panchkula V. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

ITA 617/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9922 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRERNA; GAGAN DEEP SINGH
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.616/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) KULDEEP JAIN, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.NO.865, SECTOR 19, WARD 1, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AFOPJ6151J ITA NO.617/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) REENA JAIN, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.NO.865, SECTOR 19, WARD 1, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AKLPJ3811F AND ITA NO.618/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ARUN JAIN, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.NO.846, SECTOR 9, WARD 1, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AEGPK1800A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAGANDEEP SINGH & MS. PRERNA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.06.2016 2 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA, EACH DATED 24.3.2015, RELATING TO ASSESS MENT YEARS 2004-05, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY, PA SSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT). 2. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICA L IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AN D ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BY 10 DA YS, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE REASON GIVEN WAS THAT TH E ASSESSEE, NAMELY SHRI ARUN JAIN HAD SUFFERED FROM B RAIN TUMOR IN THE PAST AND HAS BECOME FORGETFUL. THEREF ORE, HE JUST FORGOT AFTER KEEPING THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (AP PEALS) WITH HIM AND AFTER RECALLING IT AFTER LAPSE OF SOME TIME, THE SAME WERE FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 10 DAYS. IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE INTENTION FOR FILING THE APPEAL LAT E HAS NOT BEEN DELIBERATE NOR MALAFIDE. A COPY OF THE MEDICAL 3 CERTIFICATE OF SHRI ARUN JAIN WAS FILED WITH THE AP PLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE CONDO NATION OF DELAY. 5. WE FIND THAT THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE SAID DELAY. 6. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SHRI AR UN JAIN HAS PURCHASED THE BOOTH NO.77 IN SECTOR 9, PANCHKULA FOR INVESTMENT OF RS.6,35,340/-. THE SOU RCE OF INVESTMENT WAS CLAIMED TO BE THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HI S FATHER SHRI SIKHAR CHAND JAIN. SHRI KULDEEP JAIN, THE OTHER ASSESSEE WHO IS SON OF SHRI ARUN JAIN ALSO PURCHASED ANOTHER BOOTH NO.82 IN SECTOR 9, PANCHKUL A AND HAS SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS.3,76,316/-, OUT OF W HICH AN INVESTMENT OF RS.3 LACS WAS MADE BY BANK DRAFT D ATED 5.7.2003 OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ISSUED BY BRANCH, SECTOR 5, ROHINI, DELHI PAYABLE AT CHANDIGARH. THE THIRD ASSESSEE, NAMELY SMT.REENA JAIN, WHO IS ALSO WIFE O F SHRI KULDEEP JAIN WAS CO-OWNER OF 1/2 SHARE IN BOOTH NO. 82 AND HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.3,76,316/- ON THE SAI D PROPERTY OUT OF WHICH RS.3 LACS WERE STATED TO BE B Y BANKERS CHEQUE OF HDFC BANK DATED 5.7.2003 PAYABLE AT PANCHKULA. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS STATED BY ALL THE THREE ASESSEES 4 THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,10,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY SHR I ARUN JAIN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS FATHER SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN. AN AMOUNT OF RS.3 LACS EACH WA S CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED BY SHRI KULDEEP JAIN AND SMT.REENA JAIN FROM THE SAME, SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JA IN. THE COPIES OF BANK DRAFTS AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSES WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED TO PRODUCE SHRI SH IKHAR CHAND JAIN FOR VERIFYING THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS FOR THE SAID TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE SHRI SH IKHAR CHAND JAIN FOR VERIFYING THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS FOR THE SAID TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE SHRI S HIKHAR CHAND JAIN STATING THAT HE WAS BED-RIDDEN AND FINAL LY ON 27.7.2011, IT WAS STATED THAT SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JA IN HAS SINCE BEEN EXPIRED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT STATING THAT T HE SOURCE OF THESE INVESTMENTS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. 7. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS), THE SAID SUBMISSIONS WERE REITERATED AND IT WAS STATED THAT THERE IS NO CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND J AIN AND HE BEING RELATED TO ALL THE THREE ASSESSES, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE CIT (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF ALL THREE AS SESSES. HE OBSERVED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF ALL THE ASSESSES, IT IS NOT COMING OUT THAT THESE AMOUN TS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN. 5 FURTHER, DOUBTING THE WHOLE TRANSACTIONS, THE CIT (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE DRAFT OF PUNJAB NATIONA L BANK DATED 5.7.2003 IS DRAWN AT SECTOR 5, ROHINI, DELHI, WHEREAS SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN IS A RESIDENT OF PANCHKULA HAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, PANCHKULA. IN CASE OF SMT.REENA JAIN, COPY O F BANKERS CHEQUE PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF DRAFT OF RS. 3 LACS GIVEN BY HER GRANDFATHER-IN-LAW IS APPARENTLY A FOR GED DOCUMENT AS THE BANKERS CHEQUE OF HDFC BANK DATED 5.7.2003 IS CLAIMED TO BE SIGNED BY KAVITA CHHABRA AND SNEH LATA, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES FOR INDRAPRASHTHA SAHKARI BANK LTD. IN THIS VIEW, THE CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES A ND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) ONLY ON THE REASON THAT SHRI SHIKHAR CHAN D JAIN COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. IT WAS STATED THAT SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN WAS AN OLD MAN AND BED-RIDD EN FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS AND EXPIRED DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THAT IS THE REASON WHEY HE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A CO PY OF BANK 6 ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN WAS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK IN THE CASE OF SHRI KULDEEP JAIN. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO SHOW FROM THE PER USAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN AND BAN K ACCOUNT OF RESPECTIVE ASSESSES THAT THE MONEY HAS F LOWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSES. 10. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THAT OF THE CIT (APPEA LS) AND FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN TO SHOW THAT THOUGH THE MONEYS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THIS ACCOUNT TO T HE ACCOUNT OF SHRI ARUN JAIN, HOWEVER THE SAME HAVE BE EN DIVERTED BY ISSUE OF VARIOUS CHEQUES AND TRANSFER VOUCHERS BEFORE THE DATE OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AND NO AMOUNT WAS LEFT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI ARUN JA IN FOR PURCHASE OF SAID PROPERTY. AS REGARDS THE OTHER TW O ASSESSES, NAMELY SHRI SHRI KULDEEP JAIN AND SMT.REE NA JAIN, HE STATED THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOU NT OF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN, THERE IS NO ENTRY TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT HAS COME FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IS SA ID TO BE 7 OUT OF FUNDS GIVEN BY SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN IN AL L THE THREE CASES. EVEN IF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN I S RELATED TO ALL THREE ASSESSES AND IN THIS WAY, THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER IS PROVED. WE HAVE TO SEE T HE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN SUCH CASES. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE GENUINENESS OF BANK DRAFT, ETC. GIVEN FOR INVESTMEN T OF PROPERTIES AS HAS BEEN STATED IN THE ORDER OF THE C IT (APPEALS), FIRST WE PERUSE THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ALL THE THREE ASSESSES AS WELL AS THAT OF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAN D JAIN. ON A CLOSE PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SH RI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN, WE OBSERVE THAT THERE ARE CERTA IN OUTFLOWS OF FUNDS IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI ARUN JAIN AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI ARUN JAIN, WE SEE THAT ON EVERY OCCASION WHENEVER THERE IS A DEPOSIT COMING OUT FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN, THE SAME HAS BEEN EITHER TRANSFERRED OR USED FOR ISSUING CHEQUES. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED D.R. THAT THE BANK ACCOU NT OF SHRI ARUN JAIN DOES NOT SHOW MUCH FUNDS AVAILABL E FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT. IN OTHER TWO CASES THAT OF SHRI KULDEEP JAIN AND SMT.REENA JAIN, FROM THE PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN, WE DO NOT SEE ANY AMOUNT GOING OUT FROM THIS BANK ACCOUNT TO THE ACCOUNT OF THESE ASSESSES. THEREFOR E, WE DO NOT FIND TRUTH IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAVE COME FROM THE SOURCE OF FUN DS IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN. IN VIEW OF 8 THIS, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (APPEALS) IN CONCLUDI NG THAT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS HAD REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. 12. SINCE NO ARGUMENTS IN RESPECT OF LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED IN THE MEMO OF APPEALS WERE MADE BEFORE US, SAME ARE TREATED DISMISSED AS NOT BEING PRESSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 14 TH JUNE, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH