Sh. Shreeram Gupta, Gwalior V. A.C.I.T., Range-3, Gwalior

ITA 94/AGR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 9420314 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S D SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 94/AGRA/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SHREERAM GUPTA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER E-27 HARI SHANKER PURAM, RANGE 2(3), GWALIOR GWALIOR (PAN AGBPH 5058 C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.D. SH ARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 09.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.06.2014 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 09.01.2014 FOR A.Y. 2009-10, CHALLENG ING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,69,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. ITA NO.94/AGRA./2014 2 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS STATED TO HAVE INTRODUCED CREDITS OF A SUM OF RS.2,75,000/- AS ADVANCE MONEY , RS.18,000/- FROM SHRI KISHAN KUMAR GUPTA, RS.19,000/- SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, RS. 18,000/- FROM MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, RS.20,000/- FROM ASHOK KUMAR KUSHWAH A ND RS.19,500/- FROM PRASHANT SEN. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,69 ,500/- OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE CONF IRMATORY LETTERS, BANK STATEMENT OR COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE CREDITS WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE. ALL THE ADVANCE AND LOANS WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH. T HE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) ON WHICH REMAND RE PORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE A.O. IN WHICH THE A.O. STATED THAT EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDING, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT, P ROOF OF IDENTITY, CONFIRMATION OR AFFIDAVIT OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ADVANCE OR L OANS IN CASH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT (A), THEREFORE, FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWO RTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ADVANCE OR LOAN HAVE BEEN REC EIVED IN CASH. THE ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E WAS DISMISSED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO AGREEMENT TO S ELL DATED 08.01.2008 TO SHOW THAT ITA NO.94/AGRA./2014 3 ADVANCE OF RS.2,75,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM SHANKER DAYAL RAJAYAK FOR SALE OF THE PLOT BUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGREEMENT ITSELF HA S NOT BEEN PROVED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DISPUTE WITH SHRI SHANKER DAYAL RAJAYAK, WHO HAS GIVEN ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE AND MATTER IS PENDING IN CO URT, HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE OF ANY LITIGATION BETWEEN THEM HAVE BEEN FILED. MORE S O, WHEN ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED CASH CREDIT, BURDEN IS UPON ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI SHANKER DAYAL R AJAYAK AND NO EVIDENCE OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THIS PERSON WAS PROVED. EVEN BE FORE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTHING WAS PRODUCED. SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE US BECAUS E NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HAVE BEEN PRODUCED TO PROVE THE GENUINE CREDIT IN T HE MATTER. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT RS.1,35,000/- WAS RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEAR TO THIS AGREEMENT IN CASH FOR WHICH ALSO NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINC E THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR AND HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRA NSACTION IS NOT PROVED, THEREFORE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BECAUSE THE BURDEN UPON ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED IN ANY MANNER TO PROVE GENUINE CREDIT. IN THE CASES OF THE REMAINING CREDITOR, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN RECEIVED A CASH OF RS.94,500/- IN ALL AND ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY PROOF OF THEIR IDENTITY, EVIDENCES OF THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS, THEREFORE, NO GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ITA NO.94/AGRA./2014 4 HAS BEEN PROVED. IT IS STATED IN THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL THAT ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEAR FOR WHICH ALSO NO AFFIDAVIT HAVE BE EN FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. MERELY LEDGER ACCOUNT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PRODUCED, WHICH WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. EVEN IN THE CASE OF PR ASHANT SEN, THE AMOUNT IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN JULY 2008 WHICH WOU LD DEFINITELY FALL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. SINCE NOTHING WAS PRO DUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO PROVE THE RECEIPT OF THE CASH AMOUNT, THER EFORE, ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINE SS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. NO EVIDENCE WAS ALSO PRO DUCED TO SHOW IF THE CREDITS WERE RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEARS. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY EVIDENCE, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINE CREDITS IN THE MATTER. SINCE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH LOAN AND CASH ADVANCES FROM ALL THE ABOVE PERSONS THE BU RDEN IS VERY HEAVY UPON ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO N IN THE MATTER AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. THE ITAT, AGRA BE NCH, IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUMAN GUPTA VS. ITO 138 ITD 153 CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF U NEXPLAINED CREDIT IN WHICH THERE WERE SMALL BANK BALANCES IN THE ACCOUNTS OF T HE CREDITORS AND THEY WERE HAVING MEAGER INCOME AND PRIOR TO GIVING CHEQUE OF THE LOANS, THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS. THE TRIB UNAL CAME TO THE FINDING THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CR EDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE ITA NO.94/AGRA./2014 5 TRANSACTION. ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BEING ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES ONLY. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE ALLAHAB AD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUMAN GUPA VS. CIT AND OTHERS IN INCOME TAX AP PEAL NO.680 OF 2012 DATED 07.08.2012. THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ON WEAKER FOOTINGS. IN THE ABOVE CASE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDEN CE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER WAS NOT PROVED. TH EREFORE, THE CREDITS AND ADVANCES REMAIN UNEXPLAINED. THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF OM PRAKASH JOSHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 123 TTJ 246 DO ES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO INTERFERE WITH THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ADDITION STANDS CONFIRMED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AMIT/ ITA NO.94/AGRA./2014 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY