SMT. ASHA CHHABRA, BATHINDA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BATHINDA

ITA 695/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0006 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset; Gift; Onus to prove; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 250; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 695/ASR/2017 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ASHA CHHABRA C/O CHHABRA RESORTS, OPP. SPORTS STADIUM, BATHINDA [PAN: AJPPC 5593G] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. P. N. ARORA (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 11.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.05.2019 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BATHINDA ('CI T(A)' FOR SHORT) DATED 11.9.2017, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CO NTESTING HER ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE AC T' HEREINAFTER) DATED 28.7.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-14. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THE SUSTAINABIL ITY IN LAW OF THE ADDITION U/S. 68/69 IN THE SUM OF RS.4 LACS MADE IN ASSESSMENT, I .E., IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO. 695/ASR/2017 (AY 2013-14) ASHA CHHABRA V. ITO 2 3.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE-INDIVIDUAL RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS. 2,60,590 FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR ON 15/ 3/2014. IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 133A OF THE ACT AT THE BUSINESS PR EMISES OF ONE, SH. RAMESH CHABBRA, PROPRIETOR, M/S. CHABBRA RESORTS, BATHINDA ON 04/12/2014, HE ADMITTED TO THE PREMISES BEING OWNED BY HIS WIFE, THE ASSESS EE, WHO WAS, ON VERIFICATION, FOUND TO HAVE PURCHASED PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATIO N OF RS. 18.38 LACS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, I.E., ON 22/10/2012, INCURRING REGIS TRATION EXPENSES AT RS. 1.47 LACS. SHE WAS FURTHER FOUND TO HAVE INVESTED RS. 24 LACS ON CONSTRUCTION OF HER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OF WHICH SHE COULD NOT EXPLAIN R S. 4 LACS, THE BALANCE RS. 20 LACS BEING BY WAY OF BANK LOAN. REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE ACCORDINGLY INITIATED TO BRING THE SAID, UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO TAX. 3.2 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE, IN EXPLANATION OF THE INVESTMENTS, ADMITTED, VIDE HER STATEMENT ON OATH D ATED 19/12/2014 (PB PGS. 1-5), TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS, AT AN AGGREGATE OF RS. 15 L ACS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR FROM HER CLOSE RELATIVES, AS UNDER: (I) SH. MUKESH CHHABRA S/O SH. MADAN LAL R/O BATHIN DA (BROTHER IN LAW) RS.6 LAC (II) SH. MOHAN LAL CHHABRA S/O SHRI MADAN LAL R/O B ATHINDA (BROTHER IN LAW) RS.1 LAC (III) SH. GAURAV CHHABRA S/O SHRI RAMESH CHHABRA R/ O BATHINDA SON RS.2 LAC (IV) RAJESH CHHABRA S/O SHRI RADHA KRISHAN CHHABRA R/O SAMANA (BROTHER) RS.4 LAC (V) SH. VASDEV CHHABRA S/O SHRI AYA RAM CHHABRA R/O BATHINDA (UNCLE) RS.2 LAC THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOT FINDING THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION TOWARD THE SAME SATISFACTORY, BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FOUND FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RS. 1 1 LACS OUT OF THE SAME, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION FOR THE BALANCE RS.4 LACS, EXPLAINED TO BE GIFT FROM HER ITA NO. 695/ASR/2017 (AY 2013-14) ASHA CHHABRA V. ITO 3 BROTHER, SH. RAJESH CHHABRA. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSE E IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. 4.1 THE ASSESSEES CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS TWO -FOLD. ONE, THAT AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, N O ADDITION U/S. 68 COULD IN ANY CASE BE MADE. TWO, THE GIFT BEING FROM THE ASSESSEE S REAL BROTHER, HOW COULD THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME BE DOUBTED? THIS IS PARTICU LARLY SO AS THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE, I.E., THROUGH THE BANKING CHANN EL, WITH IN FACT THE DONOR WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION (PB PGS. 12 & 13), HA VING DRAWN THE AMOUNT FROM HIS DEPOSIT WITH M/S. BHANU RAM RADHA KRISHAN, A FI RM IN WHICH HE IS SERVING AS AN EMPLOYEE. THE COPY OF THE DONORS ACCOUNT IN THE SAID FIRM (PB PG. 15) REVEALS A DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,78,800, REPAID AT RS. 4,00,000 B Y CHEQUE, CLEARED FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT (PB PG. 16) ON 03/10/2012. NOT ONLY THE SOU RCE, BUT ALSO THE SOURCE OF SOURCE, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SH. ARORA, HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. THE ORDERS BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE, THUS, PERVERSE. 4.2 IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PA RT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CONVEY AS IT DOES THE BASIS OF THE NON-ACCEPTANCE O F THE ASSESSEES CLAIM QUA THE SAME: 2.3.2. NOW COMING TO THE GIFT GIVEN BY SH. RAJESH CHHABRA, BROTHER OF THE APPELLANT, AFTER EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT I T HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EVEN THOUGH HE HAS ADMITTED IN HIS STA TEMENT HAVING GIVEN THE AFORESAID GIFT AFTER WITHDRAWING THE SAME FROM M/S DHANU RAM RADHA KRISH AN WHERE HE HAS DEPOSITS, YET IT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD THAT THE SAID DONOR WAS DRAWI NG A MONTHLY SALARY OF RS. 7500/-. THE EARNINGS OF THIS PERSON WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO MEET HIS OWN REQUIREMENTS; THEREFORE SUCH A PERSON WOULD NOT MAKE A HUGE GIFT OF RS. 4.00 LACS TO HIS SISTER WHO IS COMPARATIVELY WELL ITA NO. 695/ASR/2017 (AY 2013-14) ASHA CHHABRA V. ITO 4 OFF. THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES LEAD A FINGER TO WARDS IMPOSSIBILITY OF SUCH TRANSACTION BEING, AT LEAST A GIFT TRANSACTION . THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUCH THAT NO ONE WOULD PART WITH A HUGE SUM OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION WHICH HE CANNOT EARN AT THE AFORESAID RATE IN NEXT 10 YEARS CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT OUT OF HIS EARNING HE WO ULD HAVE TO SPEND A SUBSTANTIAL PART ON HIS OWN LIVELIHOOD. IT IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA THAT MERELY BECAUSE TRANS ACTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS A GIFT A TRANSACTION BY BOTH THE D ONOR & DONEE BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR BEING ACCEPTING IT AS SUCH . IF THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES POINT OUT TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, THEN IT WAS UPON THE APPELLAN T TO BRING ON RECORD THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WARRANT THAT SUCH A HUGE GIFT A MOUNT COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY A PERSON OF INADEQUATE MEANS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4.00 LACS BEING INGENU E GIFT. THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4 LAKHS IS SUSTAINED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. [EMPHASIS, SUPPLIED] 4.3 THE FIRST QUESTION TO ANSWER IS IF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT COULD, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY ACCOUNTS, AT ALL BE ASSESSED AS HER INCOME, I.E., EVEN IF THE RECEIPT IS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO ITS NAT URE AND SOURCE, AS WITHOUT DOUBT SECTION 68 APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED. THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED IS FALSE, AS, AS FOUND FROM A PERUSAL OF T HE RECORD AT THE TIME OF DICTATION, THE ASSESSEE, IN ANSWER TO Q. 8 OF HER SWORN STATEM ENT, CONFIRMS TO BE MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. EVEN SO, AS CLARIFIED DURING HEAR ING, WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED THERE BEING NO CLAIM QUA THE NON-MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, IT IS SECTION 68 THAT SHAL L APPLY. WHERE, ON THE OTHER HAND, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED, IT IS THE DEPOS IT IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT BEING RECEIVED THROUGH BANK, WHICH IS TO BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED U/S. 69A, AND WHERE NOT SO, LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED U /S. 69A. THAT IS, IN EITHER CASE, THE CREDIT OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE DEPOSIT/INVE STMENT IS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED AS TO ITS NATURE AND SOURCE, AN ADDITION FOR THE SAME SHALL ENSUE. ITA NO. 695/ASR/2017 (AY 2013-14) ASHA CHHABRA V. ITO 5 REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD BE MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JAUHARIMAL GOEL [2005] 147 TAXMAN 448 (ALL), EXPLAINING THE SAME. AS SUCH, EVEN ASSUMING NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED, SECTION 69A SHA LL APPLY QUA THE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT. WRONG MENTION OF SECTION, IT IS TRITE LAW, WOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE, CASE LAW ON WHICH IS LEGION (VIZ. ISHA BEEVI V. TRO [1975] 101 ITR 449 (SC); CIT V. HARGOPAL BHALLA & SONS [1971] 82 ITR 243 (P&H); NAMDEV ARORA V. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H). IN NAMDEV ARORA (SUPRA), THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, UPHOLDING THE TRIBUNALS SUSTAINING AN ADDITION MAD E BY THE AO U/S. 69A, U/S.68, EXPLAINED THAT, BEING ANALOGOUS PROVIS IONS, MENTION OF A WRONG SECTION TO BE OF NO MOMENT. THE ARGUMENT IS EVEN OTHERWISE FALLACIOUS AS THE A DDITION, EVEN AS APPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS, IN FACT, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ITSELF, IS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69, AND NOT U/S. 68. 4.4 COMING TO THE ISSUE ON MERITS, IT IS WELL-SETTL ED THAT A CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS TO BE SATISFACTORILY BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO ITS NATURE AND SOURCE, LEST IT BE DEEMED AS HIS INCOME. FURTHER, THIS NATURE AND SOU RCE HAS TO BE EXPLAINED ON THE PARAMETERS OF IDENTITY, CAPACITY (OF THE CREDITOR) AND GENUINENESS (OF THE TRANSACTION), TOWARD WHICH CASE LAW IS LEGION: GOVINDA RAJULU MUDALIAR V. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) SREELEKHA BANERJEE & OTHRS. V. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) KALEKHAN MOHAMMED HANIF V. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) [AFFIRMING 34 ITR 669 (MP)] CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT V. BIJU PATNAIK [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) S UMATI DAYAL V. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT VS. P. MOHANAKALA &OTHERS [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT V. LACHHMANDASS OSWAL [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H) HARI CHAND VIRENDER PAUL V. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) ITA NO. 695/ASR/2017 (AY 2013-14) ASHA CHHABRA V. ITO 6 CIT V. Y.M. SINGLA [2014] 366 ITR 242 (P&H) NAMDEV ARORA V. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) NOW, IF THE NATURE AND SOURCE IS TO BE SATISFACTORI LY EXPLAINED, I.E., IS TO BE PROVED ON THESE PARAMETERS QUA A CREDIT (U/S. 68), IT WOULD NEED TO BE SIMILARLY PROVED U/S. 69A, I.E., QUA A BANK DEPOSIT. THAT IS, THE WORDS NATURE AND SOU RCE IN SECTION 69 OR S. 69A COULD NOT RECEIVE A DIFFERENT MEANING FRO M THAT IN SECTION 68, BEING, IN FACT, AN ANALOGOUS PROVISION. AS EXPLAINED IN CHUHARMAL V. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), THESE SECTIONS EMBODY THE RULES OF EVIDEN CE BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMON LAW JURISPRUDENCE ENSHRINED IN SECTION 110 O F THE EVIDENCE ACT, I.E., ONE IS DEEMED TO BE THE OWNER OF AN ARTICLE OR THING FO UND IN HIS POSSESSION, AND BURDEN TO PROVE THAT IT IS NOT SO IS ON THE PERSON WHO SO ALLEGES. 4.5 AS A READING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS, THE L D. CIT(A) FOUND THE ASESSEES EXPLANATION NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF SHE FAILING TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THIS IS AS HOW COUL D, ONE MAY ASK, A PERSON DRAWING A SALARY OF RS.7500/- PER MONTH POSSIBLY HA VE A DEPOSIT OF NEARLY RS. 5 LACS? THERE IS NO ANSWER TO THIS PERTINENT QUESTION , NOR ANYTHING ON RECORD TOWARD THE SAME. FURTHER, EVEN SO, WHY WOULD HE GIFT THE S AME, REPRESENTING HIS CAPITAL, BUILT, AS STATED, OVER YEARS OF SAVINGS, TO ANOTHER , EVEN IF HIS SISTER; HE HAVING HIS OWN FAMILY TO SUPPORT? SH. ARORA, UPON BEING SO OBSERVED BY THE BENCH DURI NG HEARING, COULD NOT FURNISH ANY ANSWER, MUCH LESS SATISFACTORY. IF, HIS SISTER, FAR MORE AFFLUENT THAN HIM, IS DEAR TO THE ASSESSEE, SO WOULD BE HIS FAMIL Y, SUPPORTING WHOM IS HIS PRIME RESPONSIBILITY. EVEN IF THE DEPOSIT REPRESENTS HIS SAVINGS, WHY WOULD HE NOT RETAIN A PART OF IT FOR THE EDUCATION, SECURITY, HEALTH, MED ICAL NEEDS, ETC. OF HIS AND FAMILY, FOR WHICH A MAN SAVES. IN FACT, THAT HE IS ABLE TO MAINTAIN HIS FAMILY WITH THE PALTRY INCOME IS ITSELF INTRIGUING. SH. ARORA WAS ASKED TO GIVE A STATEMENT OF THE ASSETS ITA NO. 695/ASR/2017 (AY 2013-14) ASHA CHHABRA V. ITO 7 (AND LIABILITIES) OF THE DONOR TO ASCERTAIN HIS NET WORTH AS WELL AS THE PERCENTAGE OF HIS CAPITAL HE HAS GIFTED TO HIS SISTER, THE ASSESS EE, AS ALSO IF SHE, HIS SISTER, WHO IS FAR MORE WELL OFF THAN HIS DONOR-BROTHER, HAS AT AN Y TIME HELPED HIS BROTHER, STRUGGLING TO MAKE HIS TWO ENDS MEET? TO NO ANSWER . FURTHER, ANY PERSON IS ORDINARILY EXPECTED TO PART WITH ONLY A FRACTION OF HIS TOTAL ASSETS, AS TO HIS SISTER, AND NOT THE WHOLE OR ALMOST WHOLE OF IT. FURTHER, T HE ASSESSEE, FOR ALL WE KNOW, MAY NOT BE THE DONORS ONLY SISTER OR SIBLING. THIS IS PARTICULARLY SO IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE DONEE-SISTER IS APPARENTLY FAR BETTER P LACED THAN HIM, I.E., FINANCIALLY. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS THE ASSESSEE, HIS SISTER, FA R BETTER STATIONED IN LIFE THAN HIM, WHO SHOULD BE RATHER HELPING HER BROTHER TO, NOT TO BUILD A CORPUS OR CAPITAL ASSET, AS HER BROTHER DOES, BUT MAINTAIN HIMSELF AND HIS F AMILY, WHICH MAY, AS IS MOST LIKELY TO, INCLUDE GROWING AND SCHOOL GOING CHILDRE N, HER IMMEDIATE RELATIVES. THE FUNDS, IT IS FURTHER NOTED, ARE NOT REQUIRED FO R ANY EMERGENT NEED, BUT TO BUILD A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, FOR WHICH BORROWED CAPIT AL, IN THE FORM OF LONG-TERM FINANCE SO THAT IT IS REPAYABLE OUT OF THE FUTURE INCOME FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, IS READILY AVAILABLE. IN FACT, THE BUILD-UP OF CAPITAL , TO THAT EXTENT, STATING TO BE OUT OF PAST SAVINGS, IS ITSELF INCOMPREHENSIBLE IN THE PRE SENT CASE. EQUALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE IS THE NON-CHARGE OF ANY INTEREST BY THE ASSESSES BROTHER, THE DEPOSITOR, ON THE SAID DEPOSIT WITH THE EMPLOYER-FI RM, REPRESENTING, AS IT APPEARS, HIS ENTIRE CAPITAL, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT E VEN A BANK DEPOSIT YIELDS A DECENT RETURN AND, FURTHER, ON A RISK-FREE BASIS. THE DEPO SITOR WOULD, CONSIDERING THE HIGH LEVEL OF RISK HE ASSUMES BY PLACING HIS RESOURCES W ITH ONE FIRM, UNDER REGULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, CHARGE INTEREST AT THE MARKET RATE, EVEN IF NOT HIGHER, IN SYNC WITH THE HIGHER RISK ASSUMED BY HIM. RATHER, WHY SHOULD HE PLACE HIS ENTIRE CAPITAL WITH ONE FIRM, INCREASING HIS CREDIT RISK? THE PERSONAL SAVINGS, STATED TO BE THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT, COULD ONLY BE OUT OF THE INCOME OR ACC UMULATED CAPITAL. NO EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE SAVING, OR EVEN SAVING POTENTIAL , HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. ITA NO. 695/ASR/2017 (AY 2013-14) ASHA CHHABRA V. ITO 8 EVEN ASSUMING THE INCOME TO BE AT THE SAME LEVEL IN THE PAST, WHICH THOUGH IS NOT SHOWN, THERE IS A HARDLY ANY SCOPE FOR SAVING, EVEN AS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). RATHER, AS AFORE-NOTED, MUCH LESS HIS CAPACITY BEIN G DEMONSTRATED, IT IS THE SURVIVAL ITSELF OF THE DONOR, GIVEN HIS MEAGRE INCOME AND RE SOURCES, THAT IS REMARKABLE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEPOSIT ITSELF IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE AND UNEXPLAINED. IT MAY BE APPRECIATED THAT IT IS THE DONORS CAPITAL THAT IS THE STATED SOURCE OF THE FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE; THE DEPOSIT WITH THE DEPOSITEE-FIRM R EPRESENTING THE SAME. IT IS THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR, AND NOT THE SOURCE OF SOURC E, AS STATED, WHICH REMAINS TO BE PROVED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD OR EVIDENC E LED BY THE ASSESSEE, SUBSTANTIATING HER CLAIMS, THE DONORS STATEMENT OR DEPOSITION, WOULD BE OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE. CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS ARE MATTERS O F FACT, TO BE, THEREFORE, FACTUALLY ESTABLISHED, WHILE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS POINTED OUT BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AND WHICH FINDS ENDORSEMENT ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE FACTS, THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES LEADS TO THE IMPOSSI BILITY OF THE TRANSACTION. FACTS ARE NOT PROVED ON THE BASIS OF AFFIDAVITS AND COUNT ER-AFFIDAVITS, EVEN AS ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY (OF THE STATED CREDITOR) IN THE PRESEN T CASE. BOTH THE CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS ARE, FOR THE REAS ONS AFORE-STATED, UNPROVED, IF NOT DISPROVED. 4.6 NO OTHER ISSUE AND/OR ARGUMENT WAS RAISED BY AN D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DURING HEARING NOR, ACCORDINGLY, RESPONDED TO BY TH E OTHER SIDE. THIS IS EMPHASIZED IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSES GROUND/S RAISING OTHER CON TENTIONS, PARTICULARLY QUA THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL, THOUGH ADDRESSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 695/ASR/2017 (AY 2013-14) ASHA CHHABRA V. ITO 9 5. THERE IS, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, IN MY VIEW, NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, DECLINING INTERFERENCE . 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT ON MAY 30, 2019 SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 30.05.2019 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: ASHA CHHABRA C/O CHHABRA RES ORTS, OPP. SPORTS STADIUM, BATHINDA (2) THE RESPONDENT: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAR D 1(1), BATHINDA (3) THE CIT(APPEALS), BATHINDA (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T TRUE COPY BY ORDER