Sh. Sharanjit Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 65/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 6521514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Source of fund
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 65/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI SHARANJIT SINGH, V ITO-VI(3), PROP. M/S ROYAL RESORTS, LUDHIANA. VPO THREEKE, LUDHIANA. PAN: ANCPS-4069G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 16.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.08.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2011 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'TH E ACT'). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,77,000/- AS PER PARA-4 OF HIS ORDER BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS: A. COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT AS RECEIVE D BY THE APPELLANT FROM HIS FATHER SH. JAGDEV SINGH ALONG WITH SOURCE, BANK ACCOUNT, HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND B EFORE THE WORTHY CIT(A), WHICH HE HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER AND APPLY HIS MIND. 2 B. THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE EX PLANATION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AFTER THOUGHT, IS AGAIN INCORRECT AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,20,000/- AS PER PA RA-5 OF HIS ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING FACTS: A. THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE CREDIT OF RS. 7,20,000/- RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME BELONGING TO JAGDEV SINGH GREWAL HUF, IN WHICH THE APPELLANT IS CO-PARCENERS AND S INCE, HE HAD SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL SEEDS TO M/S GARG SEEDS CORPO RATION ON BEHALF OF JAGDEV SINGH GREWAL HUF, HE HAS ACTED ON LY ON BEHALF OF HUF AND, THEREFORE, ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED IN HIS N AME FROM M/S GARG SEEDS CORPORATION IS THE INCOME OF THE HUF ONL Y AND NOT HIS INCOME. B. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE DULY ATTEST ED AFFIDAVIT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND, THEREFORE , THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT STOOD DULY EXPLAINED AND THE CI T (A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION WHICH IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. C. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SINC E THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE CREDIT OF RS. 7,20,000/- I S THE INCOME FROM HIS RESORT BUSINESS, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDE NCES PLACED ON RECORD. 3. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 8,98,528/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED FROM CLOSE FRIE NDS AND RELATIVES DESPITE ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF SUCH LOANS COUPLED WITH THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM SUCH FRIENDS AND RELATIVES HAD B EEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A). 4. THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) ABOUT UNDERTAKING GIVEN UNDER THE PROVISION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT IS CONTRAR Y TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THAT THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS AND IDEN TITY OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE SENT THE AMOUNT HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED, T HE CIT (A) HAS TOTALLY ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SOURCE OF RS. 8, 98,528/- ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION. 3 6. THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPO SED OFF. 3. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT REFERRED TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BO OK AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE BRIEF SYNOPSIS SUBMITTED BY HI M TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS. THE LD. 'DR', ON THE OTHE R HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND T HE CIT(A). 4. IN GROUND NO.1, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,77,000/- A S PER PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RELEVANT RECORDS, INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK AND BRIEF SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE LD. 'AR' OF AP PELLANT. IN THIS CASE, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO THAT ASSESSEE HAD ADDED THE FIXED A SSETS OF AGRICULTURE LAND, TO THE TUNE OF RS.24,00,000/-. T HE AO, SOUGHT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS OF FIXED ASSETS AN D IMMOVABLE ASSETS INCLUDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN SUCH ASSETS. THE APPELLANT DECLARED THAT HE HAD PURCHAS ED AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS.38,77,000/-. HOWEVER, VAL UE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE, WAS SHOWN AT RS.24,00,000/-. THE AO, SOUGHT EXPLAN ATION FOR SUCH DIFFERENCE IN THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE P URCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. ON APPRECIATION OF THE SUBMI SSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO FOUND THE EXPLANATION AS NOT 4 ACCEPTABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. I T WAS, FURTHER, OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD C LAIMED RECEIPT OF RS.14.70 LACS FROM HIS FATHER, AND THE R ELEVANT ENTRY DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE A SSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ENTRIES SHOWN IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF S HRI JAGDEV SINGH APPEARS ON 26.03.2007. AS PER THE SAL E DEED, THE SELLER HAD RECEIVED THE FULL AMOUNT OF CONSIDER ATION BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER/DATE OF REGISTRATION I. E. 26.3.2007. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.4,77,000/- FROM M/S GARG SEEDS CORPORATION, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR, ON BEHA LF OF HIS FATHER SHRI JAGDEV SINGH, OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOM E OF HIS FATHER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE TH E CONCERNED PERSON. ENTRIES OF THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF M/S ROYAL RESORTS . IN VIEW OF THIS, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.14,77, 000/- TREATING THE INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND, AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. LD. CIT(A), ON APPRECIATIO N OF THE SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE HIM, UPHELD THE ADDITION, A S IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER : 4 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS.14,77,000/- FROM HI S FATHER. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HAS SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS.24,00,000/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND IN HIS BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS WHEREAS INVESTMENT OF RS.14,77,000/- HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN AT ALL. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED A TOTAL OF RS.38,77,000/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND INSTEAD OF RS.24,00,000/-. BALANCE OF RS.14,77,000 ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED TO HAVE 5 RECEIVED FROM FATHER, SH. JAGDEV SINGH , WHO IN TUR N HAS SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED THE SAME FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES. THEN THE SAID, SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE REGULAR BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND .SHOWING THE FUNDS OF RS. 14,77,000/- RECEIVED FROM FATHER APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT . THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF FUNDS OF RS.14,77,000 AND HENCE THESE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL IS REJECTED AND ADDITION OF RS.14,77,000/- IS UPHELD. 6. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 AND 69 OF THE ACT, CONTAIN A GOLDEN RULE OF EVIDENCE, EMBEDDED THEREIN. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT ENTRY AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY, CRE DIT- WORTHINESS OF THE PARTY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRAN SACTIONS. THIS PROPOSITION IS WELL SETTLED IN VIEW OF NUMEROU S DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURTS AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO PROVE EVEN PRIMA-FACIE, THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID LAND. IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT MERE FILING OF EXPLANATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT AND THE EXPLANATION SHOULD BE BAS ED ON COGENT AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND IT MUST BE PL AUSIBLE EXPLANATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH EXPLANATI ON HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, FINDINGS OF T HE CIT(A) ARE UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN GROUND NO.2, ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CIT(A) E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,20,000/- AS PER PARA-5 OF HIS ORDER. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) FAI LED TO CONSIDER THAT THE CREDIT OF RS.7,20,000/- RELATED T O 6 AGRICULTURAL INCOME, BELONGING TO SHRI JAGDEV SINGH GREWAL, HUF, IN WHICH THE APPELLANT IS A CO-PARCENER AND SI NCE, HE HAD SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL SEEDS TO M/S GARG SEEDS CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE SHRI JAGDEV SINGH GRE WAL, HUF, HE ACTED ONLY ON BEHALF OF THE HUF AND THEREFO RE, ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED IN HIS NAME FROM M/S GARG SALES CORPORATION, IS THE INCOME OF THE HUF AND NOT HIS I NCOME. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE, INCLUDING PAPER BOOK AND BRIEF SYNOPSI S IN THE MATTER. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY AGRICULTU RAL INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.33,97,623/- OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF SHRI SHARA NJIT SINGH, IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF M/S ROYAL RESORTS, A S ON 31.3.2007 IS APPEARING. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY AO, TO EXPLAIN, DESPITE HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHY HE H AS NOT SHOWN HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITT EN SUBMISSION, AS UNDER : 'THE ASSESSEE ALREADY FLUTED VIDE LETTER DT.26/10/2 009 THAT SH. JAGDEV SINGH GREWAL HUF WHO IS THE KARTA OF THE FAMILY SOL D THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIONS TO M/S GARG SEEDS THROUGH SH. SHURANJIT SINGH (ASSESSEE) AGAINST BILL NO. 1 DT. 26/12/2006 AND THE PAYMENTS OF THE SAME WAS ALSO RECEIVED. M/S GARG SEEDS ISSUED TWO CHEQUES FOR RS. 2,50,000/- EACH AND THE SAME WAS ALSO DEPOSITED IN THE SAVING BANK A/C NO .22213 WITH LO.B, THIS BANK A/C IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE FIRM. AS REGARDS, AGRICULTURE INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAD A LREADY STATED A NUMBER OF TIMES VIDE LETTERS DT. 26/10/2009, 06/11/2009 AND 1 6/11/2009 ALONGWITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF STATUS AGRI CULTURE LANDS AS WELL AS AGRICULTURE INCOME THEREON BELONGED TO SH. JAGDEV S INGH GREWAL HUF AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN STATED VIDE LE TTER DATE 23.11.2009 AND SUBMITTED PEDGREE TABLE (SHAJRA NASA B) OF VILLAGE THREEKE NO. 156 TEHSIL LUDHIANA (WEST), DISTT.LUDHI ANA. IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION OF LAND BY WAY OF INHERITANC E/SUCCESSION OR OTHERWISE IN NATURE. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HE RE AGAIN THAT THE 7 AGRICULTURE INCOME ON THE SAID AGRICULTURE LAND, WE RE ALREADY SHOWN IN THE HANDS OF SHRI JAGDEV SINGH GREWAL HUF DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO DIVE RT THE ISSUE OF HAVING AGRICULTURE INCOME BY SAYING T HAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BELONGS TO SHRI JAGDEV SINGH, H UF. THE AO, FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE FACT IS ALREADY ON RE CORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING A N ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 22213 IN I.O.B. AND REGULAR CREDIT ENTRIES ARE MADE TO THIS ACCOUNT . SHRI SHARANJIT SINGH, PROPRIETOR OF THE CONCERN IS OWNER OF THIS ACCOUNT, AS THE ACCOUNT IS MAINTAINED AND OPERATED IN HIS NAME. IF THE VERSION IS CORRECT, THEN ALL THE CRED IT ENTRIES MADE IN THIS ACCOUNT ARE BOGUS AND SALE OF AGRICULT URAL PRODUCE SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNT IS THE PROFIT EARNED F ROM THE RESORT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, AO H ELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO AGRICULTURE INCOME, AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODU CE, AS CLAIMED, IS PROFIT EARNED FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVIT IES OF M/S ROYAL RESORTS, INTRODUCED IN THE SHAPE OF CASH CRED ITS. ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS.7,20,000/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. LD. CIT(A), UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE AO, AS IS EVIDENT FROM HIS FINDING, CONTAINED IN PARA 6. HOWEVER, FO R THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE SAME, SAME AR E REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPEL LANT'S COUNSEL AND ALSO PERUSED RELEVANT SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURE INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.33,97,623/- OF AGRICULTURE INCOME IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF HIS PROPRIETARY FIRM M/S ROYAL RESORTS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT TH E SAID INCOME REPRESENTED AGRICULTURE INCOME OF HIS FATHER'S HUF, SH. JAGDEV SINGH GREWAL HUF , WHO HAS 8 SOLD THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE THROUGH THE ASSESSEE A ND PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNTS. IT HAS NOT .BEEN CLARI FIED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY AGRICULTURE INCOME OF HUF WAS NOT RECEIVED IN THE S AVING ACCOUNT OF THE HUF. THE SAVING ACCOUNT I'N WHICH THE SAID RECEIPTS HAVE BEE N RECEIVED BELONGED TO ASSESSEE AND EVEN ACCOUNT WAS OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINC E THE ASSESSEE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SOURCE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME, HENCE THESE CREDIT EN TRIES OF RS.7,20,0000.00 WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ASSESSEE'S INCOME FROM HIS RESORT BUSINESS. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALSO REJECTED AND A DDITION OF RS.7,20,000 IS CONFIRMED. 10. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND UN- CORROBORATED EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHI CH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION, IN VIE W OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND, HENCE TH E FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE UPHELD AND GROUND OF APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11. IN GROUND NO.3, ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,98,528/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN SECURED LOANS RECEIVED FROM CLOSE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES DES PITE ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF SUCH LOANS COUPLED WITH THE CON FIRMATIONS FROM SUCH FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. THE ASSESSEE WAS A SKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH ENTRIES. AO, OBSERVED THAT ALL THE ENTRIES IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, CAME FROM WEST ERN UNIT MONEY TRANSFER. THE AO, HAS REPRODUCED RELEVANT TEX T OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INDI CATING TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS, AS FAR AS UNSECURED LOAN IS CONCERNED. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 'I UNDERTAKE THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED REMITTANCE RE CEIVED BY ME IS IN NO WAY COMMERCIAL OR TRADE RELATED OR PURCHAS E OF PROPERTY, INVESTMENT OR FOR CREDIT TO THE SENDER'S/REMITTERS NRE/FCNR 9 ACCOUNTS ETC. NOR FOR DONATION OF ANY KIND I UNDERT AKE THAT THE ABOVE REMITTANCE IS PURELY PERSONAL IN NATURE TOWAR DS FAMILY MAINTENANCE ETC. CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS GOVER NING THE MONEY TRANSFER SERVICE YOU HAVE SELECTED ARE SET FO RTH ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM. BY SIGNING THIS FORM, YON ARE AGREEIN G TO THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE TRANSFER FEE, WE STERN UNION AND ITS AGENTS ALSO MAKE MONEY FROM THE EXCHANGE OF CUR RENCIES, PLEASE SEE IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING CURRENCY EXCHANGE SET FORTH ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM. ' 12. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE CERTIFICATE REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED, DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS, NEITHER IT I S A DONATION OF ANY KIND AND THE ABOVE REMITTANCE IS PU RELY PERSONAL IN NATURE, TOWARDS FAMILY MAINTENANCE ETC. THE AO, RECORDED A FINDING IN PARA 5.1 THAT THE MONEY W AS NOT RECEIVED FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND IT HAS BE EN RECEIVED IN MAINTENANCE OF THE FAMILY. FURTHER, TH IS IS NOT A MODE OF RECEIPT OF LOAN FROM ANY PERSON. SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT ALLOWS ACCEPTANCE OF ANY LOANS OR DEPOSITS, BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR PAYEES ACCOUNT DRAFT ON LY, IF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR CREDIT AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT, EXCEEDS RS.20,000/-. THE AO WAS N OT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,98,528/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A), UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE AO IN PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 7. NOW COMING TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 7 & 8 FOR AD DITION OF RS.8,98,528/- TOWARDS UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED FROM NON-RESIDENT FRIENDS/RELATIVES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS UNSECURED LOANS FROM NRIS FOR PUR CHASING PROPERTY. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN UNDERTAKI NG UNDER INDIAN LAWS THAT SAID REMITTANCE RECEIVED BY HIM IS NOT FO R PURCHASING PROPERTY. THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, ON BASIS OF WHICH THE SAID REMITTANCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED, CANNOT BE IG NORED. THE 10 UNDERTAKING HAS BEEN GIVEN AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT AND ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLO WED TO USE THE PROVISIONS OF DIFFERENT ACTS AS PER HIS CONVENI ENCE AND FLOUT THE LAW OF THE LAND. EVEN OTHERWISE LOANS HAVE TO BE RE CEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AS PER THE PROVISIONS, OF SECTION 269 SS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE- 1 .UNDERTAKING THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE MONEY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE FAMILY AN D IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTHING ELSE. HENCE THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALSO-REJECTED AND ADDITION OF RS.8,98,528/- IS ALSO SUSTAINED. 13. HAVING REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC FACT-SITUATION OF THE CASE, HAVING RECORDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH AMO UNT. THEREFORE, FINDING OF THE CIT(A), ARE UPHELD AND GR OUND OF APPEAL BEARING NO. 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NOS. 6 & 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND, HE NCE, NEED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. THUS, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH AUG.,2012. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24 TH AUG.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT ,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH