Ita/24/2016 Of Sanjeev Kumar v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Aaykar Bhawan Sec 17 Chd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.24 of 2016 (O&M)Date of decision: 26.4.2016 Sanjeev Kumar Vs, ..-.-- Appe Commissioner of Income Tax I, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector 17,Chandigarh and another .....Responden CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see thejudgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:Mr. M.R.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1]This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act’) against the orderdated 27.8.2015, Annexure A.3 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No.40/Chd/2013, for the assessment year2009-10, claiming following substantial questions of law:- “1) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theorders partly (Annexure A.1), partly (Annexure A.2) andpartly (Annexure A.3) are legally sustainable?orders partly (Annexure A.1), partly (Annexure A.2) andpartly (Annexure A.3) are legally sustainable? 11)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law inupholding the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A)Chandigarh with regard to the addition of=a25,00,000/-under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant filedrequisite details with regard to the unsecured loan before theITAT through a paper book for consideration duringappellate proceedings but the same have not been taken intoconsideration while passing the order by the Hon'ble ITAT?the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law inupholding the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A)Chandigarh with regard to the addition of=a25,00,000/-under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant filedrequisite details with regard to the unsecured loan before theITAT through a paper book for consideration duringappellate proceedings but the same have not been taken intoconsideration while passing the order by the Hon'ble ITAT? ili) That the appellant assessee craves leave to alter, amend,delete or add to any of the above substantial questions of lawduring the pendency of the present appeal?”delete or add to any of the above substantial questions of lawduring the pendency of the present appeal?” 2 A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversyinvolved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-assessee isengaged in the business of trading of steel at Morinda in Ropar district inthe State of Punjab under the name and style of M/s Shree NeelkanthEnterprises, Kurali Road, Morinda, District Ropar. The appellant filed hisreturn of Income on 30.9.2009 alongwith audit reports and audited annualaccounts as per the provisions of section 44AB of the Act declaring nettaxable income at LT3,01,6320/-. The case of the appellant was processedunder the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act on 7.9.2010 which wasaccepted. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issuedon 30.8.2010 as the case of the appellant was selected for scrutinyassessment. A questionnaire alongwith statutory notice was issued to theappellant on 23.6.2011, 3.8.2011 and 21.12.2011. The Assessing Officer inher order dated 29.12.2011, Annexure A.1 had specifically stated that sincethe assessee did not furnish any reply, there was no other alternative leftwith her but to complete the assessment on merits. It was further stated inGURBAX SINGHdae order that it was either Shri Sanjeev Garg, ITP or the brother of the2016.05.10 11:23I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentHigh Court Chandigarh ITA No.24 of 2016 (O&M)1appellant, Shri Bhushan Kumar who attended the proceedings before theAssessing Officer. The appellant never attended the proceedings as he wasnot well. No reply was filed by the assessee. While completing theassessment, the Assessing Officer made various additions anddisallowances. According to the appellant, the additions made other than theaddition of “a25,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act are not underchallenge before this Court. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2011,Annexure A.l passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appealbefore the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide orderdated 29.10.2012, Annexure A.2, it was held that since the assessee had notbeen able to prove the source of cash credit ofan25, lacs which waostensibly received from Shri Ashok Bansal, the addition of the amountunder section 68 of the Act was held to be justified. Not satisfied with theorder, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide orderdated 27.8.2015, Annexure A.3 partly allowed the appeal. However, onthe issue qua addition of the amount under section 68 of the Act, thefindings recorded by the CIT(A) were upheld by the Tribunal. Hence theinstant appeal by the assessee. 3,We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4It has been inter alia recorded by the Tribunal after appreciationof entire material on record that the assessee could not produce anyevidence regarding source of deposit ofa25 lacs by Shri Ashok Bansalwith him. Under Section 68 of the Act, onus was upon the assessee to provethe identity of the creditor, his credit worthiness and genuineness of thetransaction in the matter. Since the assessee failed to produce anydocumentary evidence regarding the source of the deposit of the amount, ITA No.24 of 2016 (O&M) the addition was held to be justified. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- “12. On ground No.4, assessee challenged the addition of =25,00,000/- on account of cash credit under section 68 of theAct. The brief facts are that assessee had shown unsecuredloan ot v25 lacs in the name oft Shri Ashok Bansal. ThAssessing Officer requested the assessee to furnishconfirmation alongwith PAN of Shri Ashok Bansal and proofof his filing income tax return. The Assessing Officer askedthe assessee to furnish documentary evidence regarding sourceof credit in the hands of Shri Ashok Bansal and also to explainwhether he is assessed to tax. The assessee did not furnish anyevidence regarding source of the deposit of this amount.Therefore, Assessing Officer made addition under section 68ot the Income Tax Act. Since no submissions have been madebefore learned ClIT(Appeals), therefore, addition waconfirmed and this ground of appeal of the assessee wasdismissed.25,00,000/- on account of cash credit under section 68 of theAct. The brief facts are that assessee had shown unsecuredloan ot v25 lacs in the name oft Shri Ashok Bansal. ThAssessing Officer requested the assessee to furnishconfirmation alongwith PAN of Shri Ashok Bansal and proofof his filing income tax return. The Assessing Officer askedthe assessee to furnish documentary evidence regarding sourceof credit in the hands of Shri Ashok Bansal and also to explainwhether he is assessed to tax. The assessee did not furnish anyevidence regarding source of the deposit of this amount.Therefore, Assessing Officer made addition under section 68ot the Income Tax Act. Since no submissions have been madebefore learned ClIT(Appeals), therefore, addition waconfirmed and this ground of appeal of the assessee wasdismissed. 13. We have heard learned representatives of both the parties. Thelearned counsel for the assessee has shown his inability toproduce any evidence regarding source of deposit of“a25 lacsby Shri Ashok Bansal with the assessee. It is well settled lawthat for explaining the cash credit under section 68 of the Act,burden is upon assessee to prove identity of the creditor, hiscredit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction in thematter. Since the assessee has failed to furnish any evidenceon source of the deposit and credit worthiness of the creditor,therefore, assessee has failed to prove the credit worthiness ofthe creditor and genuineness of the transaction in the matter.No submissions were made before learned CIT(Appeals) andeven no evidence has been produced before us to explain theabove issue, therefore, we do not find any error in the ordersof the authorities below in making and confirming theaddition. This ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly,learned counsel for the assessee has shown his inability toproduce any evidence regarding source of deposit of“a25 lacsby Shri Ashok Bansal with the assessee. It is well settled lawthat for explaining the cash credit under section 68 of the Act,burden is upon assessee to prove identity of the creditor, hiscredit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction in thematter. Since the assessee has failed to furnish any evidenceon source of the deposit and credit worthiness of the creditor,therefore, assessee has failed to prove the credit worthiness ofthe creditor and genuineness of the transaction in the matter.No submissions were made before learned CIT(Appeals) andeven no evidence has been produced before us to explain theabove issue, therefore, we do not find any error in the ordersof the authorities below in making and confirming theaddition. This ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly, dismissed.’ 5.The concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below onthe limited issue qua addition of|v25 lacs on account of cash credit undersection 68 of the Act have not been shown to be illegal or perverse in anymanner by the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. Thus, nosubstantial question of law arises. Consequently, the appeal standsdismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal)Judge April 26, 20166gs (Raj Rahul Garg)Judge