Subham Jain (Minor), New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 809/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 80920114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NO. 809/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YR: 2002-03 SHUBHAM JAIN (MINOR) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, U/G SH. SANJAY JAIN (FATHER) WARD 14(3), NEW DELH I. 4379/4B, ANSARI GANJ, NEW DELHI. PAN/GIR NO. AKNPJ0514B (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROHIT GARG SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DA TED 24-12-2009 RELATING TO A.Y. 2002-03. FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAI SED: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DIRECTIN G THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ADDITIONS OF RS. 10,00,000/- BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AS TH E LEARNED OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO GIVE DIRECTION TO RE OPEN THE ASSESSMENT OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, 2.1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAIN ING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS LEGAL IN SPITE OF THE F ACT THE REASONS FOR INITIATING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL BEING INITIATED WITHOUT FORMATIO N OF HIS (ASSESSING OFFICER) OWN BELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE AL LEGED ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT APPRECIA TE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING QUASI JUDICIAL OFFICER IS R EQUIRED TO FORM HIS OWN REASON TO BELIEF RATHER TO WORK AT THE DICT ATES OF HIS ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 2 SUPERIORS AND THE REASONS RECORDED BY HIM ARE THERE FORE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND AS SU CH THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 2.2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPREC IATE THAT ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE ON PRESUM PTIONS AND CONJECTURES UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS CONCLUSIVE MA TERIAL TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND C ONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ARE ILLEGAL. 2.3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPREC IATE THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ENTIR ELY BASED ON PRESUMPTION AND IN UTTER VIOLATION OF RULES OF NATU RAL JUSTICE, BEFORE UPHOLDING ADDITION IN THE RETURNED INCOME. 2.4. THAT THE INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT L EVIABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW. 2.5. THAT INTEREST U/S 234B SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A PPEALS) IS EXCESSIVE AND THE SAME IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W. 2.6. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER & CIT (APPEALS) ARE NOT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AS PER L AW AND HENCE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND NOT BASED ON BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. 2. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GRO UNDS TO BE ADMITTED AND RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC VS.CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 1. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 DATED 16 TH MACH, 2007 OF THE ACT, IN THE NAME OF MINOR (SUBHAM JAIN), BEING ILLEGAL, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARE VOID AB INITIO & LIABLE TO B E QUASHED. 2.THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOTICE OF DEMAND U/ S 156 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF SUBHAM JAIN (MINOR) IS ILLEG AL CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS M INOR CANNOT ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 3 BE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX ON THE INSTANT FACTS OF T HE CASE AND AS PER LAW. 2.1. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED, BEING LEGAL IN NATURE, ARE ADMITTED. 3. AO RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM DCIT, CEN. CIR. III , NEW DELHI THAT SHRI SUBHAM JAIN DURING A.Y. 2002-03 HAD RECEIVED A CCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS. 10,00,000/-, WHICH WERE BOGUS IN NATURE. 3.1. BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SHRI SUBHAM JAIN. ON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE, SHRI SA NJAY JAIN, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, FILED LETTER DATED 17-4-2007, AS UNDER: PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE NOTICE DATED 16-3-2007 ( RECEIVED ON 22-03-2007). IN THIS RESPECT IT IS SUBMITTED THAT S UBHAM JAIN WAS A MINOR DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 AND HA S NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THAT YEAR. THE INCO ME IF ANY EARNED BY HIM WAS CLUBBED U/S 64 WITH THE INCOME OF HIS FATHER SH. SANJAY JAIN S/O SH. LATE SH. PARKASH CHAND JAIN WHO HAS FILED HIS RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 WITH ITO WARD NO 47(2), ON 1-8-2002 VIDE RECEIPT NO. 009911. HE ASSESSED UNDER PAN NO. AABHS0915H. AND THAT THE RETURN FILED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE BE TREAT ED AS HAVING BEEN FILED PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER IT IS REQUESTED THAT A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABLE US TO PREPARE OUR CASE FOR PRESENTATION BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. 3.2. SIMILAR TYPE OF LETTER WAS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ON 13-8-2007. 3.3. THEREAFTER REASONS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESS EE, OBJECTIONS IN THIS BEHALF WERE FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 27-11-2007, WHI CH WERE REJECTED BY AO ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 4 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14-2-2007. ASSESSMENT U/S 148/ 143(3) WAS THEREAFTER FRAMED ON 31-12-2007. IN PARA 1.2 OF HIS ORDER THE AO OBSERVED AS UNDER: 1.2. THEREAFTER AGAIN A LETTER DATED 13-08-2007 WA S FILED BEFORE THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER {WARD 30(2)} THAT SH. SUBHAM JAIN WAS MINOR DURING THAT PERIOD AND HAS NO T FILED ANY INCOME FOR THAT YEAR. THE INCOME, IF ANY, WAS CLUBB ED U/S 64 WITH THE INCOME OF HIS FATHER SHRI SANJAY JAIN, HAV ING PAN AABHS0915H AND HE IS ASSESSED TO TAX WITH ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY SHRI SANJAY JAIN FOR A.Y. 2002-2003 MAY BE TREAT ED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8. A COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN FILED WITH ITO 47(2), NEW DELHI ON 01-08-2002 HAS BEEN FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TRAN SFERRED THE RELEVANT FOLDER CONTAINING THE NOTICES ISSUED AND S UBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCES TO THIS OFFICE. 3.4. AO GAVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO ASSESSEE T O ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS BY PRODUCING DONOR. ASSESSEE DID NOT DI SCHARGE THE BURDEN. CONSEQUENTLY, AO HELD THE GIFTS TO BE BOGUS AND ADD ED THE SAME BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE ITS CONTENTION THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE GIFTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,00, 000/- FROM SHRI MANISH KUMAR GARG AND SHRI VIPIN KUMAR. THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH EVEN THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS , LEAVE ALONE THE CAPACITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SO CALLED DONORS. THUS, THE BONA FIDE OF THE TRANSACTION ALSO COULD NOT BE PROVED. THIS FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY DCIT CC-3, AND BUTTRESS THE FINDING OF THE INVESTIGATION WING THAT SH. SUBHAM JAIN HAS RECEIVED BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM THESE PERSONS. 3.5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL, IN TER ALIA, RAISING THE GROUND THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ILLEGAL ON FOLLOWING COUNTS: ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 5 (I) THE FIRST NOTICE ISSUED ON MINOR WAS BAD IN LAW AND NO NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER OF THE MIN OR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE VALID JURISDICTION FOR REASSESSMENT WAS N OT ASSUMED. (II) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 WERE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE MINOR SH. SUBHAM JAIN, IN THE EYES OF LAW ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE CANNOT BE FRAMED IN THE NAME OF THE MINOR. THE REASSESSMENT WAS THUS BAD IN LAW. (III) MERITS OF THE ADDITION. 3.6. CIT(A) ON THE RESPECTIVE ISSUES, HELD AS UNDER : (A) VALIDITY OF 148 PROCEEDINGS : I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A O. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE NAME OF SUBHAM JAIN (MINOR) U/G SH. SANJAY JAIN (FATHER) . THUS, HE HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT U/G OF FATHER OF THE APPELL ANT. SECTION 64 PROVIDES THAT THE INCOME OF A MINOR IS TO BE INC LUDED IN THE INCOME OF PARENT WHOSE IS HIGHER. PROVISO TO SUB SE CTION 1A OF SECTION 64 PROVIDES ONLY TWO EXCEPTIONS NAMELY, WHE RE INCOME OF THE MINOR CHILD IS ON ACCOUNT OF MANUAL WORK DON E BY HIM OR FROM AN ACTIVITY INVOLVING APPLICATION OF HIS SKILL , TALENT OR SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE. OBVIOUSLY, TH E APPELLANTS CASE IS NOT FALLING UNDER THE ABOVE CAT EGORIES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT CAN NOT BE MADE IN THE NA ME OF THE MINOR AND HIS INCOME REQUIRES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF HIS PARENT WHOSE INCOME IS HIGHER. ON PERUSAL OF CASE R ECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT SH. SANJAY KUMAR JAIN FATHER OF THE APPE LLANT HAS DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,62,940/- IN HIS RETU RN FILED BEFORE ITO WARD 47(2) NEW DELHI ON 1-8-2002 VIDE RECEIPT N O. 009911 FOR AY 2002-03. HIS MOTHER SMT. SUNITA JAIN HAS DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 1,42,800/- IN HER RETURN FIL ED BEFORE ITO WARD 29(3) NEW DELHI VIDE RECEIPT NO. 003285 FOR AY 2002- 03. SINCE THE INCOME OF FATHER MR. SANJAY JAIN IS H IGHER, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO INCLUDE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLA NT IN THE HAND OF HIS FATHER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 TO 4 THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED WELL WITHIN TIME AND THEREFORE THESE GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 6 ON MERITS : 5.8. IN THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION, NOT ONLY T HE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS BUT ALS O FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE RA TIO LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS COURTS, THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELL ANT DO NOT HAVE ANY MERITS. THE LD. AR HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE SO CALLED DONORS MR. MANISH KUMAR GARG AND SH. VIPIN KUMAR HAD CAPACITY TO MAKE A GIFT OF RS. 10 LACS TO THE APPELLANT ON THE DATE OF ALLEGED TRANSACTION. THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE PROVE T HAT IT WAS NOT A GENUINE GIFT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O IS UPHELD AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. HOWEVER, I HAVE ALREADY HELD IN PARA 4 THAT INCOME WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF SH. SANJAY JAIN, FATHER OF THE APPELLANT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US: 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, APROPOS VALIDI TY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SUBMITS AS UNDER: 4.1. THE APPELLANT WAS MINOR, SON OF SHRI SANJAY JA IN AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. HE BECAME MA JOR ON 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2007, IN SPITE OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON 17 TH APRIL, 2007 AND 13 TH AUGUST, 2007 CONVEYING THAT SUBHAM JAIN WAS MINOR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONTINUED THE PROCEEDI NGS IN THE NAME OF THE MINOR. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ON TOTAL INCOME OF FAT HER AT RS. 11,62,940/-, AFTER INCLUDING THE INCOME OF HIS FATHER SHRI SANJA Y JAIN VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31 ST DECEMBER, 2007. FRAMING ASSESSMENT AND ISSUANCE OF DEMAND NOTICE IN THE NAME OF THE MINOR IS AGAINST T HE PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, HENCE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARE LI ABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4.2. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ST ATED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY SHRI SANJAY JAIN (FATHER) FOR A.Y. 2002-03 MAY BE TREATED AS ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 7 RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE A CT. A COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF HIS FATHER FILED WITH ITO WARD 47(2), NEW DELHI ON 1 ST AUGUST, 2002 WAS ALSO FILED. DESPITE INFORMATION, AO WANTONLY CARRIED OUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE NAME OF MINOR. T HUS, THE NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MINOR, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURI SDICTION FOR REASSESSMENT WAS BAD IN LAW. BESIDES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND D EMAND NOTICE BEING IN THE NAME OF MINOR, PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE QUASHED. 4.3. ON MERITS, IT IS PLEADED THAT THE AMOUNTS RECE IVED WERE ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS, ASSESSEE FILED THE COPIES OF GIFT DEEDS, BAN K STATEMENTS AND CONFIRMATIONS OF THE DONORS FOR IDENTIFYING THE GEN UINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, COMPLETED THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 31 ST DECEMBER, 2007, IN THE NAME MINOR SUBHAM JAIN AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,0 00/- AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHA RGED HIS ONUS CAST U/S 68, THE ADDITIONS DESERVE TO BE DELETED ON MERITS ALSO. 4.4. IN FIRST APPEAL, CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRONEOUSLY UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADD THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF HIS FATHER, SHRI SANJAY JAIN. SIN CE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AB INITIO, SUCH DIRECTION CANN OT BE ISSUED. 4.5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THUS CONTENDS THAT THE ORIGINAL NOTICE BEING IN THE NAME OF MINOR AND DESPITE COMMUNICATI ONS FROM THE ASSESSEE, NO FRESH NOTICE HAVING BEEN SERVED ON THE FATHER OF THE MINOR, THE 148 NOTICE ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW. ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 8 4.6. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE HAS BEE N FRAMED IN THE NAME OF THE MINOR, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND D EMAND NOTICE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MINOR ARE ALSO BAD IN LAW. CONSEQUENTLY , THE NOTICE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE BEING BAD IN LAW, THE ENTIR E PROCEEDINGS DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. 5. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THAT THE AO ACTED ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE I NVESTIGATION WING. IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE INFORMATION THAT DONEE IS A MI NOR CONSEQUENTLY AO HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THE DONEE WAS A MINOR. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SHRI SUBHAM JAIN ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION. TH E RECEIPT OF NOTICE IS NOT DENIED BY THE FATHER ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE INCOME OF SUBHAM JAIN WAS TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SANJAY JAIN, THE F ATHER OF THE MINOR. 5.1. THE FATHER HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE RECEIPT OF NOT ICE ON BEHALF OF MINOR, ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE NOTI CE, ONLY A FACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT SUBHAM JAIN WAS A MINOR DURING THE Y EAR. FATHER HIMSELF OFFERED THAT HIS RETURN BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN FILED PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S 148. THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE BY SHRI SANJAY JAIN IN THE CAPACITY OF FATHER/GUARDIAN KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THE INCOMES OF BOTH HAD TO BE CLUBBED. THUS, FATHER RECEIVED THE NOTICE ON BEHALF OF MINOR, ACCEPTED THE FACT AND OFFERED HIMSELF TO BE CLUBBED WITH THE INC OME OF THE MINOR AND FURTHER OFFERED HIS RETURN TO BE TREATED U/S 148. 5.2. INCOME TAX ACT IN THE CASE ASSESSMENTS OF MINO RS, CONTEMPLATES ASSESSMENT OF THE MINOR IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IN R ESPECT OF SPECIFIED INCOME AND NON-SPECIFIED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF FATHER OR MOTHER. AS ALREADY MENTIONED THE AO ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION ISSUED A NOTICE WHICH IS ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 9 SERVED ON THE FATHER AND IS NOT DISPUTED. MINOR HAD NOT FILED RETURN THUS HIS NAME DID NOT APPEAR IN INCOME-TAX RECORD. THE INFOR MATION DID NOT DISCLOSE THAT DONEE WAS MINOR. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF IN FORMATION NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SHUBHAM JAIN. FATHER OFFERED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR CLUBBING OF THE MINORS INCOME IN HIS HANDS. FATHER DID NOT CLAIM TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE IN THE NAME OF MINOR. THERE IS NO BAR IN THE LAW TO ISSUE NOTICE IN THE NAME OF MINOR AS LONG AS IT IS SERVED ON GUA RDIAN. 5.3. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A HYPER TECHNICAL PLEA THAT AO WAS DUTY BOUND TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 TO REGULARIZE THE PROC EEDINGS AND THIS OMISSION ON THE PART OF AO MAKES THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BAD IN LAW. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE THOUGH ADMITS THAT SHRI SUBHAM JAIN BECAME A MAJOR ON 15-9-2007, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED ON 31-12-07 IS BAD IN L AW AS THE SAME IS PASSED IN THE NAME OF THE MINOR SUBHAM JAIN. 5.4. LD. DR CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER/ GUARDIAN SHRI SANJAY JAIN AS WELL, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE CAPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER: SH. SHUBHAM JAIN, (MINOR) U/G SHRI SANJAY JAIN, (FATHER) 4379/4B ANSARI ROAD, DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI. 5.5. THE ASSESSMENT IS THUS IN THE NAME OF MINOR WH O ATTAINED MAJORITY BEFORE ASSESSMENT. IF AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ASS ESSEE HAD BECOME MAJOR, WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER IN QUESTION DOES NOT BECOME ILLEGAL, MERELY BY WRITING THE NAM E OF FATHER. IF AT ALL THE WORD G/O, IF FOUND SUPERFLUOUS IT MAY BE OMITTED , RELIANCE IS PLACED ON SEC. 292B OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 10 5.6. ON THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION THAT THE NOTICE U /S 148 WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE MINOR, LD. DR PLEADS THAT IN THE INFORM ATION SUPPLIED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, WHICH WAS BASED ON BANK INFORMA TION, THIS FACT THAT DONEE WAS MINOR, WAS NOT MENTIONED. CONSEQUENTLY, A O DUTIFULLY ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE NAME OF SHRI SUBHAM JAIN, WHI CH WAS RIGHTLY SERVED ON FATHER. THUS THE FATHER HAS ACCEPTED THE NOTICE AS GUARDIAN AND DID NOT RETURN THE NOTICE. FATHER HIMSELF OFFERED HIS ORIGINAL RET URN TO BE TREATED AS THE RETURN FURNISHED U/S 148 AND INCOME BE CLUBBED. SIN CE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE NOTICE AS FATHER/ GUARDIAN AND DUL Y OFFERED HIS RETURN OF INCOME, THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFICIENCY. ASSESSEE IS T RYING TO CREATE A DEFICIENCY WHERE NONE EXIST AND WANTS TO CAPITALIZE THE MISCON CEIVED DEFICIENCY. AFTER THE END OF THE PROCEEDINGS. DUE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE HELD ILLEGAL AND QUASHED BY A MERE FACT THAT ALONG WITH WORD MINOR , FATHERS NAME WAS NOT WRITTEN, DESPITE PROPER SERVICE ON FATHER. 5.7. REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE IS DEFINED IN THE I .T. ACT, AS UNDER: SEC. 160(1) : 160(1) - FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT, REPRESENTAT IVE ASSESSEE MEANS (I) .. . (II) IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME OF A MINOR, LUNATIC OR IDIOT, THE GUARDIAN OR MANAGER WHO IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE OR I S IN RECEIPT OF SUCH INCOME ON BEHALF OF SUCH MINOR, LUNATIC OR IDI OT; LIABILITY OF REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE . 161.(1) EVERY REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE, AS REGARDS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS A REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE, S HALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITIE S AS IF THE INCOME WERE INCOME RECEIVED BY OR ACCRUING TO OR IN FAVOUR OF HIM BENEFICIALLY,, AND SHALL BE LIABLE TO ASSESSMEN T IN HIS OWN NAME IN RESPECT OF THAT INCOME; BUT ANY SUCH ASSESS MENT SHALL ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 11 BE DEEMED TO BE MADE UPON HIM IN HIS REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ONLY, AND THE TAX SHALL, SUBJECT TO THE OTHER PROVI SIONS CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTER, BE LEVIED UPON AND RECOVERED FROM HIM IN LIKE MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IT WOULD BE LEVIA BLE UPON AND RECOVERABLE FROM THE PERSON REPRESENTED BY HIM. 5.8. IT IS PLEADED THAT NOTICE HAVING SERVED ON FAT HER AND AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ASSESSMENT SHUBHAM BEING A MAJOR, THE ASSESSMENT IS PROPER AND RIGHTLY UPHELD. 5.9. IT IS PLEADED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 BEING IN PURSUANCE OF INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING, OTHERWISE BEING VALID, CAN NOT BE QUASHED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT PREFIXED BY THE WORD MINOR. THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE FATHER IS NOT DENIED, THERE IS NO PROVISION OF LAW WHICH IS VIOLATED BY THE AO WHILE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OR FRAMING THE REA SSESSMENT. THE NOTICE AND PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY UPHELD BY CIT(A). 5.10. APROPOS MERITS, LD. DR CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF GIFTS, CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM AOS REMAND REPORT DATED 28-10-09: ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DCIT, CE NTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI THAT THE ASSESSEE AHS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS. 5,00,000/- ON 4-9-2001 AND RS. 5,00,000/- ON 7-9-2001 RESPECTIVELY FROM M/S MANOHA R LAL MANISH KUMAR AND THE ENTRY WAS GIVEN FROM A/C NO. 1 556 WITH JAI LAXMIN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., FATEHPURI, DELHI AND FROM SHRI VIPIN KUMAR AND ENTRY WAS GIVEN FROM A/C NO. 9 378 WITH JAIN LAXMI COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., FATEHPURI DELHI, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN ACCOUNT NO. 13642 WITH JAIN COOPERATIV E BANK LTD., DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED A NOTICE U/S 148 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WAS ISSUED ON 16-03-2007 BY THE ITO WA RD 30(2), NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATE D 13-8-2007 ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 12 STATED THAT SHRI SHUBHAM JAIN IS A MINOR AND HAS NO T FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THAT YEAR AND THE INCOME, IF A NY, EARNED DURING THE YEAR WAS CLUBBED U/S 64 OF THE ACT WITH HIS FATHER SHRI SANJAY JAIN WHO HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 1-8-2002, WH ICH MAY BE TREATED TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE AI D NOTICE. ACCORDINGLY NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SH. SH UBHAM JAIN (MINOR) S/0 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR JAIN. THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ISSUE OF NOTICED U/S 148 WER E MET OUT BY THE AO VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 4-12-2007 AND WAS SENT TO SHRI SANJAY JAIN, FATHER OF SHRI SHUBHAM JAIN. THE ASSES SEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DIFFERENT STANDS AT DIFF ERENT TIMES AND COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE ENTR IES INSPITE OF MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY ALLOWED TO HIM. TH E ASSESSMENT WAS ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED AT AN INCOME O F RS. 11,62,940/- BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SHUBHAM JAIN (MINOR) U/G SHRI SANJAY JAIN (FATHER). THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31-12- 2007 U/S 148/143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF SHRI SHUBHAM J AIN (MINOR) U/G SHRI SANJAY JAIN (FATHER). THE OTHER DO CUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE ALSO PREPARE D IN THE NAME OF SH. SHUBHAM JAIN (MINOR) U/G SHRI SANJAY K UMAR JAIN (FATHER). 5.11. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS O NUS IN ESTABLISHING GIFTS AS GENUINE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUES IN QUESTIO N RAISE FOLLOWING THREE QUESTIONS I. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED ON AO FOR REOPENING U/S 148 IS BAD IN LAW AND WHETHER A NEW NOTICE WAS REQUIRED TO BE ISS UED BY AO. II. WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION, WHICH MEN TIONS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS MAJOR AT THE TIME OF P ASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH HIS FATHERS NAME AS U /G SHRI SANJAY JAIN (FATHER), CAN BE CALLED AS INVALID ASSESSMENT . ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 13 III. WHETHER ON MERITS THE ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED OR NOT. 6.1. APROPOS FIRST ISSUE, IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED CONSEQUENT TO BANK REPORT BASED INFORMAT ION FROM DDI (INV.). IT HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE US THAT THE REASONS RECORDED ARE NOT SUFFICIENT, AS NO ARGUMENT HAS BEEN RAISED ABOUT T HE SUFFICIENCY OF REASONS RECORDED. THE ONLY OBJECTION RAISED IS IN RESPECT O F ISSUING OF NOTICE IN THE NAME OF MINOR AND THEREAFTER NO ISSUE OF FRESH NOTI CE WHEN THE ASSESSEE WROTE LETTERS DATED 17-4-07 AND 13-8-07. AS THE FA CTS UNFOLD FROM THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE DDI, THERE WAS NO MENTI ON ABOUT THE ASSESSEE BEING MINOR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACTION OF AO, ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE NAME OF SHUBHAM CANNOT BE CALLED A NOTIC E BAD IN LAW. UNLESS THE AO KNOWS FROM INFORMATION ABOUT THE FACT OF MINORIT Y, THE NOTICE IS TO BE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON ABOUT WHOM THE INF ORMATION IS RECEIVED. AO WHILE ACTING U/S 148 HAS TO BASE HIS PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED. THUS, THE NOTICE IN QUESTI ON HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND ISSUED CONSEQUENT TO AN INFORMATION, IT CANNO T BE CALLED BAD IN LAW. 6.2. THE MOOT POINT WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE RAISED IS THAT WHEN ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 17-4-2007 AND 13-8-07, INT IMATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS A MINOR AND HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN O F INCOME IT OBLIGED THE AO TO ISSUE FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE NAME OF FAT HER QUA THE MINORS INCOME. THE FAILURE TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE HAS REN DERED THE PROCEEDINGS INVALID. 6.3. WE HAVE HELD THAT THE NOTICE WAS BASED ON AD I INFORMATION, CANNOT BE CALLED BAD IN LAW. THE NEXT POINT IS WHETHER TH E IMPUGNED LETTERS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE AMOUNT TO ANY OBJECTION OR NO T. WE HAVE REPRODUCED THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER ABOVE. NO WHERE IN THE L ETTER THE FATHER/ GUARDIAN ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 14 HAS OBJECTED THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED BY HI M ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR SON AS GUARDIAN AND THE NOTICE IS DEFECTIVE. RATHE R, IT ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF A PROPER NOTICE AND REQUESTS FOR COPY OF REASONS , WITH STATEMENT OF THE FACT THAT THE RETURN OF THE FATHER MAY BE TREATED A S THE RETURN FILED IN PURSUANCE TO 148 NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE HAVING ACKNOW LEDGED THE NOTICE, NOT OBJECTING TO ITS VALIDITY, HAVING OFFERED HIS RETUR N AS A RETURN TO BE FILED BY HIM ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR, WHICH, IN OUR VIEW, IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, CANNOT MAKE THE PROCEEDINGS INVALID. THE NOTICE BAS ED ON INFORMATION, WAS VALID AND THE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED WITH THE MATT ER WAS DULY VESTED IN AO. THE AO HAVING ASSUMED JURISDICTION PROPERLY, THE PR OCEEDINGS ARE VALID. AN ASSESSMENT ON REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE IN DUAL CAPAC ITY, IT CANNOT BE QUASHED ON IPSI DIXIT AND HYPER TECHNICAL OBJECTION, IF AN Y EXISTED, IS DULY TAKEN CARE BY SEC. 292B. THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION ON TH E BASIS OF ADI INFORMATION, WHICH DO NOT INDICATE THE FACT ABOUT S HUBHAM BEING MINOR, AND THERE BEING NO RETURN OF THE MINOR IN HIS NAME ON T HE RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT, AO ACTED IN FOUR CORNERS OF LAW AND IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT NOTICE WAS INVALID. IN OUR VIEW THE PROCEEDINGS WER E PROPERLY INITIATED AND CONDUCTED. 6.4. SH. SANJAY JAIN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS ACCEPTED THAT HE IS FATHER/ GUARDIAN OF MINOR, LIABLE FOR T AX AS THE REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE/ FATHER/GUARDIAN. IN OUR VIEW THE 148 NOTI CE AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN VALIDLY INITIATED AND CONDUCTED BY AO. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COU RT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DEORIA OXYGEN CO. VS. CIT )2007) 160 TAXMAN 427 (ALL.), HOLDING THAT SUCH TYPE OF MISTAKES ARE CURABLE U/S 292B. 6.5. COMING TO THE SECOND ISSUE, WHETHER INSCRIPTIO N OF BOTH THE NAMES ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 15 INVALID SO AS TO ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE STATE MENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE ITAT ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT MINOR BECA ME MAJOR ON 17-9- 2007. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 31-12 -2007 I.E. WHEN THE MINOR BECAME MAJOR. THE CHALLENGE OF LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHEN THE MINOR BECAME MAJOR, HIS ASSESSMENT ALONG W ITH THE NAME OF THE FATHER/ GUARDIAN BECOMES INVALID IN LAW, SO AS TO A NNUL IT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL CANNOT BE ACC EPTED BY ANY STANDARD. IF SHUBHAM HAD BECOME MAJOR ON THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEN ASSESSEES OBJECTION STANDS OVER-RULED BY THIS FINDING ITSELF AND MERELY MENTIONING OF FATHERS NAME ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DID NOT MAKE IT INVALID AS IN MANY CASES THE ADDRESS IS WRITTEN C/O, WHICH IN THIS C ASE, BY MISTAKE OR OVERSIGHT IS RECORDED AS U/G. BECAUSE OF THIS TINNY WINY TE CHNICAL MISTAKE, ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE UP A STAND THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW AND SHOULD BE QUASHED. IN OUR VIEW SUCH ARGUMENTS C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED TO OVER THROW THE PROCESS OF A PROPER ASSESSMENT ON TH E ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREON ARE VALID AND CIT(A) RIGHTLY UPHELD THE SAME. 6.6. APROPOS MERITS, WE MAY REPRODUCE AOS RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS: 3.2 IN THIS LETTER THE AR REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI MANISH KUMAR AND SHRI VIPIN KUMAR. IN RESPO NSE TO THIS QUERY, THE AR WAS INFORMED THAT STATEMENTS OF BOTH THESE PERSONS WAS RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, NEW DELHI. THE AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT BOTH THESE PERSONS BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. THIS REQUEST OF TH E AR WAS REJECTED KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ACCOM MODATION ENTRY WAS RECEIVED BY SH. SHUBHAM JAIN FROM THESE T WO PERSONS UNDER THE GARB OF GIFTS. THUS BOTH THESE PE RSONS MUST BE KNOWN TO THEM. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 30-1 1-2007, THE AR WAS REQUESTED TO PRODUCE BOTH THE DONORS AS THEI R WITNESS IN ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 16 SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED GIFTS FROM THESE TWO PERSONS. HOWEVER, THE AR FAILED TO PRODUCE BOTH THE DONORS. 4. TO ASCERTAIN THE CLAIM OF GIFTS, AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO BOTH THESE PERS ONS ON 17.12.2007. HOWEVER, BOTH THE SUMMONS HAVE BEEN RET URNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES UN-SERVED. 4.1. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 24-12-2007, THE A R WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE FACT THAT EVEN THE SUMMONS ISSU ED IN THE NAME OF BOTH THE DONORS HAVE BEEN RETURNED BY THE P OSTAL AUTHORITIES. IT WAS ALSO CONFRONTED TO HIM THAT SIN CE THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS COULD B E ESTABLISHED BY HIM AND THE DONORS ALSO COULD NOT B E PRODUCED AND HE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1`0 LACS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX. 6.7. ON CONSIDERATION OF FACTS IT CLEARLY EMERGES T HAT THE DONORS WERE ACTUALLY THE WITNESSES OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT OF T HE DEPARTMENT. THE FACT OF ISSUE OF A GIFT ITSELF ESTABLISHES A LOVING RELATIO NSHIP BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE ASSESSEE. IF THE GENUINENESS OF A GIFT IS SOUGH T TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO, THEN THE BURDEN TO PRODUCE DONORS WHO ARE CLAIMED T O BE FRIENDS, WILL BE ON THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ON THE AO. TO BE FAIR, AO ISSU ED SUMMONS ON DONORS, WHO WERE NOT FOUND ON THE ADDRESSES. IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONABLE THEORY OF ONUS OF EVIDENCE, REBUTTAL THEREOF AND THE SHIFT ING OF ONUS, THE DONOR BEING KNOWN AND CLAIMED TO BE ON PLEASANT TERMS WIT H THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THEM AND IN THE ABSE NCE OF THEIR PRODUCTION BY ASSESSEE, THE ONUS CANNOT SHIFT ON THE DEPARTMEN T. THERE IS NO WHISPER EMANATING FROM ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE DONOR S HAVE BECOME INIMICAL TO ASSESSEE AND REFUSED TO APPEAR. IN THE ABSENCE O F SUCH PLEA, THE BURDEN UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE CAN SHIFT ON THE AO. IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS, WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION. OUR ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 17 DECISION IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY DELHI HIGH COURT J UDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NOVA PROMOTER (ITA NO. 342/2011), WHICH SUPPORTS O UR VIEW ON THE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE CONFIRMATIONS AND BURDEN OF PROOF AND SHIFTING OF BURDEN. 6.8. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOINGS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDE R OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE GROUND RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 02-03-2012. SD/- SD/- ( K.G. BANSAL ) ( R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 02-03-2012. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITA NO. 809/DEL/10 SHUBHAM JAIN VS. ITO 18