SHRI UTTAM CHAND JAIN, Jaipur v. INCOME TAX OFFICER, Jaipur

ITA 394/JPR/2018 | 2013-2014
Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2021 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 39423114 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN ADBPJ9327R
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 394/JPR/2018
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant SHRI UTTAM CHAND JAIN, Jaipur
Respondent INCOME TAX OFFICER, Jaipur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 02-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 02-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 10-07-2018
First Hearing Date 10-07-2018
Assessment Year 2013-2014
Appeal Filed On 27-03-2018
Judgment Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHES A JAIPUR JH LANHI XKSLKBZ ] U;KF;D LNL; O A JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSIAN JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV AM VK;DJ VIHY LA - @ ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI UTTAM CHAND JAIN 121/212 AGARWAL FARM MANSAROVAR JAIPUR. CUKE VS. I.T.O. WARD 2(4) JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ADBPJ 9327 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA - @ ITA NOS. 391 TO 394/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 TO 2009-10 & 2013-14 SHRI UTTAM CHAND JAIN 121/212 AGARWAL FARM MANSAROVAR JAIPUR. CUKE VS. I.T.O. WARD 2(4) JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ADBPJ 9327 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI A.S. NEHRA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23/02/2021 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/03/2021 . VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BENCH THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A)-I JAIPUR DATED 06/11/2015 AND 26/10/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10 & 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS WAS CONCLUDED TROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. 2 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. 3. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS THEREFORE ALL ARE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING WE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS DELAY OF 86 DAYS IN FILING THE FOUR APPEALS I.E. ITA NOS. 391 TO 394/JP/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 AND 2013-14 AND THE ASSESSE HAS FILED APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE CONTENTS MADE IN ONE OF THE CONDONATION APPLICATION READS AS UNDER: THE ORDER U/S 250 WAS PASSED BY THE ID. CIT(A)-I ON 26.10.2017 AND WAS SERVED ON 01.11.2017. ACCORDINGLY I WAS SUPPOSED TO FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF ORDER I.E. ON OR BEFORE 31.12.2017. BUT THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 86 DAYS. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE DECEMBER 2017 I AM NOT KEEPING WELL. I WAS SUFFERING FROM SEVERE BACK PAIN AND AFTER CONSULTING A DOCTOR IT WAS DETECTED THAT THERE WAS SOME SEVERE PROBLEM IN MY SPINAL CORD AND BECAUSE OF WHICH I WAS BED RIDDEN UPTO MARCH 2018 (EVIDENCE ENCLOSED). THEREAFTER ALSO I MET WITH AN ACCIDENT ON 16 TH MARCH 2018 AND GOT MY HAND FRACTURED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASON I WAS NOT ABLE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE LEGAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER INCOME TAX LAWS. I THEREFORE MAKE A HUMBLE PRAYER THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE REASON DELAY IN FILING APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS:- 1. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI [1987] 167 ITR 471 3 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. 'THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO CONDONE DELAY BY ENACTING S.5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON 'MERITS'. THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE END OF JUSTICE THAT BEING THE LIFE-PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS.' 2. M/S GMG ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES VS. M/S ISSA GREEN POWER SOLUTION (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 447312015) WITH A.C. GOVINDARAJ AND ORS. VS. M. KRISHNAMOORTHY & ORS. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4473/2015): IN THIS CASE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD IN PARA 8 AS UNDER: 'IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' IS TO RECEIVE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. WHEN THERE IS NO NEGLIGENCE INACTION OR WANT OF BONAFIDE IS IMPUTABLE TO THE APPELLANTS THE DELAY HAS TO BE CONDONED. THE DISCRETION IS TO BE EXERCISED LIKE ANY OTHER JUDICIAL DISCRETION WITH VIGILANCE AND CIRCUMSPECTION. THE DISCRETION IS NOT TO BE EXERCISED IN ANY ARBITRARY VAGUE OR FANCIFUL MANNER. THE TRUE TEST IS TO SEE WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS ACTED WITH DUE DILIGENCE.' I THEREFORE MAKE A HUMBLE PRAYER THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE REASON DELAY IN FILING APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD DR COULD NOT REBUT THE FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US FOR SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 86 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEALS BELATEDLY IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT THE COURTS HAVE TO TAKE LIBERAL APPROACH WHILE INTERPRETING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN 4 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY PROVIDED UNDER THE STATUTE IS TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO THE PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF THE MATTER ON MERITS THEREFORE WHILE CONSIDERING THE MATTERS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THE LAW MUST BE APPLIED IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES ENDS OF JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD NOT COME ON THE WAY OF CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. THERE IS NO QUARREL THAT THE EXPLANATION AND REASONS EXPLAINED FOR DELAY MUST BE BONAFIDE AND NOT MERELY A DEVICE TO COVER AN ULTERIOR PURPOSE SUCH AS LACHES ON THE PART OF THE LITIGANT OR AN ATTEMPT TO SAVE LIMITATION IN THE UNDERHAND WAY. IF THE PARTY WHO IS SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS NOT ACTED IN MALAFIDE MANNER AND REASONS EXPLAINED ARE FACTUALLY CORRECT THEN THE COURT SHOULD BE LIBERAL IN CONSTRUING THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND LEAN IN FAVOUR OF SUCH PARTY. A JUSTICE-ORIENTED APPROACH HAS TO BE TAKEN WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HOWEVER THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A LITIGANT GETS FREE RIGHT TO APPROACH THE COURT AT ITS WILL. 7. IF WE APPLY THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS OTHER COURTS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED CAUSE OF DELAY THEREFORE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 86 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS AND ADMIT THE SAME FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATION. 5 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. 8. NOW WE DEAL WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE BEING ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 AS A LEAD CASE FOR THE DECIDING THE APPEALS. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL UNJUSTIFIED ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 00 000/- U/S 69 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL. THE ACTION OF ID. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL UNJUSTIFIED ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 5 00 000/-. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 60 000/- U/S 69 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITOR (SHRI S.K. JAIN RS. 5 00 000/- AND SHRI S.K. PANDYA RS. 6 60 000/-). THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL UNJUSTIFIED ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 60 000/-. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 00 000/- U/S 69 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED REASON THAT THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH RECEIPTS ARE NOT EXPLAINED. THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL UNJUSTIFIED ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 00 000/ 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 07 780/- U/S 69 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: 6 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. NAME AMOUNT GHANSHYAM DILANI 2 00 000/- V.K. NAGPAL 8 56 780/- SURYAKANT SHARMA 51 000/- TOTAL 11 07 780/- THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL UNJUSTIFIED ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 07 780/-. 6. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 17 00 000/- RECEIVED FROM CHOPRA AND JAIN COLONIZERS FOR THE ALLEGED REASON THAT SOURCE OF THESE CASH RECEIPTS ARE NOT EXPLAINED. THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL UNJUSTIFIED ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17 00 000/-. 9. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD FILED BY THE ASSESSE WE NOTICED THAT INITIALLY THE ASSESSE WAS APPEARING THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BUT HAD BEEN SEEKING DATES ON ONE GROUND OR THE OTHER AND AT A LATER STAGE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY THEREFORE NOTICES WERE DIRECTED TO BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSE THROUGH THE LD. DR. THE LD. DR HAS TODAY DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE REPORT FILED BY THE OFFICE OF DR WHICH REFLECTS THAT THE NOTICES WERE DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSE FOR TODAYS DATE BUT EVEN IN SPITE OF THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE BENCH WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 BELONGS TO A.Y. 2006-07 AND ALREADY APPROXIMATELY 36 DATES HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED BY THE BENCH FOR ARGUMENTS AND MATTER IS GETTING OLD. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT 7 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. HE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE PRESENT APPEALS AND WHEREAS IT WAS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER TO APPEAR HIMSELF OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE COURT FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEALS. THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASONS TO FURTHER ADJOURN THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 10. THE LD. DR HAS APPEARED IN THE COURT AND IS READY WITH THE ARGUMENTS THEREFORE WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING OF THE CASE EX PARTE. 11. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR WE FOUND THAT AS PER FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 20/05/2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5 58 483/-. THE A.O. PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 148/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31/03/2014 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS. 59 52 238/-. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD GIVEN PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 13. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. FROM PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED 8 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. ORDER WE FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA 3.1.2. OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3.1.2 DETERMINATION: (I) I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT RECORD AND OBSERVED THAT VIDE HIS LETTER NO. ADDL. CIT/R-2/JPR/C-7/2012-13/2853 DATED 22.03.2013 THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-2 JAIPUR ACCORDED HIS APPROVAL FOR TAKING NECESSARY ACTION U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE SAME FACTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS NO MERIT AND THUS DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THIS GROUND BY HOLDING THAT THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-2 JAIPUR ACCORDED HIS APPROVAL FOR TAKING NECESSARY ACTION U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE SAME FACTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 14. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 00 000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. FROM PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA 3.6.2. OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 9 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. 3.6.2 DETERMINATION: (I) I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL ON PAGES 9 AND 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS 5 LAC IN THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2005 AND OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2005. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2005 WAS ACTUALLY RS. 20 44 301 WHEREAS IT WAS SHOWN AT RS. 25 44 301/- IN THE CONFIRMATION FILED DURING AY 2005-06 AND THIS MISTAKE HAS BEEN RECTIFIED BY PASSING A JOURNAL ENTRY. THE AO REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S JAIN TOWNSHIP AND LAND DEVELOPERS IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS A DIRECTOR BUT THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO THOUGH VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY HIM. (II) AS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE AO EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES THEREFORE I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF AO AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS 5 LAC MADE BY THE AO IS SUSTAINED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THIS GROUND BY HOLDING THAT THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S JAIN TOWNSHIP AND LAND DEVELOPERS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR BUT THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO THOUGH VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE AO EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 15. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. 11 60 000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. FROM PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA 3.7.2 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3.7.2 DETERMINATION: (I) I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 60 000/- AS THE APPELLANT FAILED NOT ONLY TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM THESE TWO PERSONS BUT ALSO TO PRODUCE THEM BEFORE THE AO. IN SPITE OF A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY THE AO NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE AND THUS THE AO MADE THE SAID ADDITION. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES HAS NO WEIGHT AND DESERVES TO BE REJECTED AS IT HAS BEEN HELD IN A NUMBER OF CASES THAT PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS DO NOT MAKE THE TRANSACTIONS SACROSANCT. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE CREDITORS AND THUS THE INITIAL ONUS REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE BY IT WAS NOT DISCHARGED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 60 000/-MADE BY THE AO IS JUSTIFIED AND HENCE SUSTAINED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THIS GROUND BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE CREDITORS AND THUS THE INITIAL ONUS REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE BY IT WAS NOT DISCHARGED THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 16. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. 4 00 000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. FROM PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA 3.8.2 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3.8.2 DETERMINATION: (I) I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 00 000/- AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE SUWA AND RUKMA FROM WHOM THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS. 2 LAC EACH IN CASH DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT ADMITTED THAT AFTER DUE VERIFICATION THE AO ACCEPTED THE RECEIPT OF CASH FROM 8 OUT OF 10 PERSONS. SINCE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO MAKE THE VERIFICATION OF CASH RECEIVED FROM THESE TWO PERSONS THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 LAC. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SAME ASSERTIONS WERE MADE AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. AO. I AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF AO IN THIS REGARD AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE ITS CLAIM THAT IT RECEIVED CASH FROM THESE TWO PERSONS AS IT FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS BEFORE THE AO. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE CREDITORS AND THUS THE INITIAL ONUS REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE BY IT WAS NOT DISCHARGED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF AO AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 LAC MADE BY THE AO IS SUSTAINED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THIS GROUND BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE ITS CLAIM THAT IT RECEIVED CASH FROM THESE TWO PERSONS AS IT FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE CREDITORS AND THUS THE INITIAL ONUS REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE BY IT WAS NOT DISCHARGED THEREFORE WE FIND 12 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. NO REASON TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 17. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 07 780/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED FROM THREE PERSONS. FROM PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA 3.9.2 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3.9.2 DETERMINATION: I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 07 780/- AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE SHRI GHANSHYAM V K NAGPAL AND SURYA KANT SHARMA FROM WHOM THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED MONEY IN CASH DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT ADMITTED THAT AFTER DUE VERIFICATION THE AO ACCEPTED THE RECEIPT OF CASH FROM 9 OUT OF 12 PERSONS. SINCE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO MAKE THE VERIFICATION OF CASH RECEIVED FROM THESE THREE PERSONS THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 07 780/-. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SAME ASSERTIONS WERE MADE AS MADE BEFORE THE ID. AO. I AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF AO IN THIS REGARD AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE ITS CLAIM THAT IT RECEIVED CASH FROM THESE THREE PERSONS AS IT FAILED TO PRODUCE THEM BEFORE THE AO FOR VERIFICATION. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE CREDITORS AND THUS THE INITIAL ONUS REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE BY IT WAS NOT DISCHARGED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF AO AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 07 780/- MADE BY THE AO IS SUSTAINED. 13 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THIS GROUND BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE ITS CLAIM THAT IT RECEIVED CASH FROM THESE THREE PERSONS AS IT FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE CREDITORS AND THUS THE INITIAL ONUS REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE BY IT WAS NOT DISCHARGED THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 18. GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 17 00 000/- RECEIVED FROM CHOPRA AND JAIN COLONIZERS. FROM PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA 3.10.2 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3.10.2 DETERMINATION: (I) I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO THAT IT RECEIVED RS 17 LAC IN CASH FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S CHOPRA AND JAIN COLONIZERS. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE COPY OF DISSOLUTION DEED OF THE SAID FIRM OR CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID FIRM AND THUS THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 17 LAC AS UNEXPLAINED. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE SAME ASSERTIONS WERE MADE AS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS IT IS A SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT AND IT IS NOT OPEN TO VERIFICATION IN ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FURTHER NO DISSOLUTION DEED WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER 14 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS. 17 LAC MADE BY THE AO IS SUSTAINED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THIS GROUND BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO THAT IT RECEIVED RS 17 LAC IN CASH FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S CHOPRA AND JAIN COLONIZERS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE COPY OF DISSOLUTION DEED OF THE SAID FIRM OR CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID FIRM. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE SAME ASSERTIONS WERE MADE AS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS IT IS A SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT AND IT IS NOT OPEN TO VERIFICATION IN ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 19. IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 20. NOW WE TAKE ITA NO. 391 TO 394/JP/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 AND 2013-14. FROM PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE NOTICED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE 15 ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 4 ORS. UTTAM JAIN VS ITO. FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THESE APPEALS ALSO AND WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) QUA THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS. 21. IN THE RESULT ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/03/2021. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO LANHI XKSLKBZ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( SANDEEP GOSIAN ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 02/03/2021. *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI UTTAM CHAND JAIN JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT-THE I.T.O. WARD 2(4) JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR ITAT JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 85/JP/2016 & 391 TO 394/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR