Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer Ward Tonk, Tonk Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 157 / 2017 Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Proprietor of M/s Kartik Oil Mill Kafla Gali, Tonk (Presently at G-1/4, Industrial Area Neem Ka Thana, Sikar-332713) ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer Ward Tonk, Tonk Rajasthan ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sarvesh Jain For Respondent(s) : _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGHJudgment 05/07/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal confirming the order of CIT(A). 2.Counsel for the appellant has framed the followingsubstantial questions of law:- “a) Whether learned ITAT were right in ignoringthe settled law that as per Section 68 ofIncome Tax Act, 1961, once the appellantdischarges his initial onus to prove the identity,genuiness and creditworthiness of thecreditors, the burden to disprove theexplanation offered and the evidence adductedshifts on the department? b) Whether learned lower authorities werejustified in rejecting the explanation given byappellant that he is not answerable to provesource of source?” 3.Counsel for the appellant contended that the assess is notsupposed to explain the source of income. However, in view ofthe observations made by the Tribunal in para 3.4 which readsas under:- “3.4. I have heard the rival contentions andperused the materials available on record. Brieffacts of the case are that the AO during thecourse of assessment proceedings observedthat the assessee had claimed shop expensesof Rs. 2,73,203/- and telephone expenses ofRs. 14,388/-. The AO observed that theassessee had not maintained any bill orvoucher for the claimed expenses. The AOfurther observed that the assessee had failedto submit any other evidence in support of theclaimed expenses. The AO thus disallowed 10%the expenses i.e. Rs. 28,759/- out of the totalexpenses of Rs. 2,87,591/- being unverifiableexpenses from the books of accountmaintained by the assessee. The AO added thedisallowance of expenses of Rs. 28,759/- to thetotal income of the assessee which in firstappeal has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A). Inappellate proceedings, the ld. AR of theassessee submitted that all the expenses arerecorded in the books of account of theassessee and they are of routine businessnature. However, the ld. AR of the assesseecould not produce the evidence as to thedisallowance of the claim made by the lowerauthorities. In this view of the matter, I concurwith the findings of the ld. CIT(A). ThusGround No. 2 of the assessee is dismissed.” 4.We are of the considered opinion that this is nothing butconversion of black money by assess on the same date in theaccount of relatives who are thickly related with the assessee. 5.In that view of the matter, the view taken by the Tribunal isjust and proper. No interference is called for. 6.Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/4