Sh.Suraj Chhabra, Chandigarh v. The Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

ITA 883/CHANDI/2016 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 88321514 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN ABDPC5372R
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 883/CHANDI/2016
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant Sh.Suraj Chhabra, Chandigarh
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 19-10-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 03-08-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 883/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI SURAJ CHHABRA VS THE ITO HOUSE NO. 1458 WARD 4(4) SECTOR 44-B CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ABDPC5372R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI OM DUTT SHAR MA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.10.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2 CHANDIGARH DATED 06.05. 2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION O F RS. 3 50 000/-. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3 50 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MRS. POOJA SINGH FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT. BRIEF FACTS ON T HE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MR S. 2 POOJA SINGH TO SELL HIS PROPERTY AT MOHALI ON 02.09 .2008 AND RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 3 50 000/- IN CASH AS ADV ANCE AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT TO BE RECEIVED SUBSEQUENTLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CONTENTION WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WITH MUTUAL CONSENT DEAL WAS CANCEL LED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3 50 000/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICE R HOWEVER CONFIRMATION WAS NOT FILED BEFORE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THE CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT( APPEALS) ON WHICH THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS CALLED FOR WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORD ER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT STATED THAT IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MRS. POOJA SINGH IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PLOT NO. 241 SECTOR 108 MOHALI ON 02.09.2008 AND RECEIVED RS. 3 50 000 /- ADVANCE IN CASH AND REMAINING AMOUNT TO BE RECEIVED AS WAS DUE ON 24.12.2008. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROV E THE CONTENTION BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ADDITION WAS MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CONTENTION PUT FORTH BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAVE ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED IN WHICH ASS ESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF ADVANCE OF RS. 3 50 000/- A SUM OF RS. 1 50 000/- WAS PAID IN CASH AND RS. 2 LACS W ERE 3 TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT ON 01.09.200 8. THERE IS A CONTRADICTION IN THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FOR TH BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AT THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SINCE IN THE RECEIPT-CUM-AGREEMENT IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT SUM OF RS. 3 50 000/- WAS RECEIV ED IN CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ADDITION IS CORRECTLY MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 4(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT ASSESSING OFFI CER MADE THE ADDITION BECAUSE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH EVI DENCE TO PROVE THAT ADVANCE MONEY WAS RECEIVED FROM MRS. POOJA SINGH FOR SALE OF THE PLOT. FURTHER THERE IS A CO NTRADICTION IN STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RECEIPT OF AMOUNT OF RS. 3 50 000/- IN CASH OR PARTLY THROUGH BANKING CHANNE L. THE CONFIRMATION OF MRS. POOJA SINGH WAS ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HOWEVER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF RS. 3 50 00 0/- AND TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND IN-CONS ISTENCY IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) HELD THAT TRANSACTION IS NOT GENUINE AND SOURCE OF ADVAN CE REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS I AM NOT IN CLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS. 3 50 000/- IN CASH FROM MRS. POOJA SINGH ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERT Y THROUGH AGREEMENT TO SELL ON 02.09.2008. THE ASSES SEE DID 4 NOT FURNISH ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS BEFORE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO PROVE RECEIPT OF CASH OF RS. 3 50 000/- FROM MRS. POOJA SINGH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE REQUIRED THE AMOUNT F OR HIS OWN BUSINESS PURPOSES AND LATER HE MANAGED TO GET THE DEAL SHOWN AS CANCELLED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH EREFORE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED HIS OWN CAPITAL T HROUGH COLOURFUL DEVICE TO AVOID TAXES. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THEREFORE DID NOT BELIEVE THE AGREEMENT-CUM-RECEIP T. THIS FINDING OF FACT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE NOT B EEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER. FURTHER W HEN ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ASSE SSEE EXPLAINED THAT IN-FACT ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 2 LAC S THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FROM MRS. POOJA SINGH ON 01.09.2008 THROUGH RTGS AND ENTRY EXISTS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO FILED W HICH ALSO SHOWS THAT RS. 2 LACS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ASSESSE E ON 01.09.2008 FROM MRS. POOJA SINGH THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT THE PURCHASER MRS . POOJA SINGH WOULD MAKE PAYMENT OF RS. 2 LACS THROUGH BANK ING CHANNEL ON 01.09.2008 TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ENTERI NG INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL ON 02.09.2008. 5(I) FURTHER THERE IS A CONTRADICTION IN THE E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AS W ELL AS BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION OF MRS. POOJA SINGH IS FILED AT PAGE 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK I N WHICH SHE HAS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO HOW AND IN WHAT MANNER ADVANCE HAVE BEEN GIVEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALS O IN HIS 5 REMAND REPORT REFERRED TO RECEIPT-CUM-AGREEMENT AND EXPLAINED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THERE IS A CONTRADICTION IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WIT H REGARD TO MODE OF PAYMENT EITHER MADE IN CASH OR THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE COPY OF THE RECEIPT-CUM-AGREE MENT IS NOT FILED BEFORE TRIBUNAL FOR VERIFICATION AND APPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT FILING OF CONFI RMATION AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WHICH IS ALSO VAGUE DID NO T FILE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO PROVE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF MRS. P OOJA SINGH AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MAT TER. THE ASSESSEE MERELY STATED THAT SHE WAS DRAWING SAL ARY OF RS. 21 75 000/- PER ANNUM BUT NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPOR T OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN FILED AND EVEN NO COPY OF THE BA NK STATEMENT OF MRS. POOJA SINGH HAVE BEEN FILED. THE REFORE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF MRS. POOJA SINGH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. THEREFORE MERE FILING OF THE CONFIRMATION CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE NATURE AND SOURCE OF TRANSACTION. 6. HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF BHARTI PVT. LTD. 111 ITR 951 AND UNITED COMMERCIAL & INDUS TRIAL COMPANY LTD. 187 ITR 596 HAVE HELD THAT MERE CONFIRMATION NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE GENUINE CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS THEREFORE FAILED TO PROVE SOURCE OF RS. 3 50 000/- AND GENUINESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON DECISI ON OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS G.P. INTERNATIONAL LTD. DATED 02.12.2009 IN ITA 618 /2009 6 IN WHICH THE QUESTIONS OF LAW WERE WITH REGARD TO T HE LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 41(1) AND UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL. THEREFORE THIS JUDGEMENT IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FAS TS OF THE CASE. 7. CONSIDERING ABOVE DISCUSSION I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE STANDS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19 TH OCTOBER 2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH