9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 45,60,000/- by the assessee in his bank account maintained with HDFC, Rajouri Garden. Accordingly, the assessee was required to submit the nature and source of cash deposit with documentary evidences. In response thereto, the assessee vide written submissions dt. nil submitted that he is an agriculturalist having declared an agricultural income also. The assessee had, received various advances against the proposed sale of agricultural land. These funds were deposited in bank account maintained with HDFC Bank, Rajouri Garden Branch. It was also submitted by the assessee that some money had been deposited with the firm A.K.Mehta & Co., out of advances received. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has further submitted that these advances have not been received as single transaction but the advances have been received, on various dates in accordance with convenience and availability of funds and Mutual settlement between the parties However, as the assessee did not produce these parties nor submitted any documents regarding identity of the persons, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. In the absence of any supporting details filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used to accept that any advance has been given against any land possessed by appellant. They have also declined to have issued any receipt of giving advance when they were shown the copies of receipts furnished by appellant during assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Both have stated their annual income during F.Y. 2008-09 around Rs. 40,000/- from agriculture. The statements of Shri Jagjeet Singh, Patwari was also recorded by AO who categorically stated that the land in question was already sold by appellant on 16.04.2001 for a consideration of Rs. 17.83 lacs and during the F.Y. 2008- 09, Smt. Shashi (widow), Shri Varun, Shri Gaurav, Shri Vijay Kumar, S/o Tulsi, Shri Darshan Kumar, Shri Rameshwar, Shri Rampal, Shri Jaipal, Shri Zile Ram, Shri Suresh Kumar etc. were the owners of the said land in that year. Thus the land was already sold by appellant in the year 2001 to some other persons as above and for the same land; he is now claiming to have received advances from altogether different persons. Thus, the conclusion drawn by AO regarding unexplained cash credits in the hands of appellant is substantiated by the inquiries made by him during the remand proceedings. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itors. Just for the sake of taking a ground, he has raised a general objection that he was not given any opportunity to cross examine the creditors. Had he any objection or shortcomings in the contents of statements of creditors, he should have raised these objections in the submissions during remand proceedings or appellant proceedings. However, the same has not been done by him. The other objections raised by appellant regarding the invocation of section 68 of the Act are also misplaced. The AO has, during the assessment proceedings as well as remand proceedings, conducted every possible inquiry by issuing notices u/s 133(6) of the Act, issuing summons u/s 131, making spot enquiries, asking appellant to furnish complete details about the creditors and then only reached the conclusion. It has to mention here that as per settled principle of law, onus is on the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transactions as per provisions of law. Once, the onus is discharged by assessee, it gets shifted to AO to prove otherwise. However, in the case of appellant, appellant himself has failed to discharge his onus of fulfilling all three condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout affording proper opportunity to cross examine the witnesses despite repeated request made by the appellant. 4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest u/s.234B & 234D of the Act: 5. The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any ground on or before the time of hearing" 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. On behalf of the assessee it has been submitted that the evidence was collected against the back of assesee and was not confronted to him by the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that statements of certain persons were recorded who has per the Revenue showed ignorance of the transactions and ld. AR submitted that in villages there is possibility of people with similar name and unless opportunity was given to cross examine, the statement of those witnesses could not have been relied. Thus, the sum and substances of the arguments were that there were violation of principle of natural justice by relying evidence by Ld. CIT(A) which was not confronted to the assessee and reliance in this regard placed on the judgment :- "1. P. Mittal Manufacturing (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, ITAT (Delhi) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khs and that during the F.Y 2008-09. The land was recorded in the name of these vendee. 9. Now when the case of assessee is of a prejudice being caused due to not being provided opportunity of cross examination of witnesses then there should at least be some matter on record to suggest that accepting the evidences as un-rebutted, has caused prejudice to the assessee. The right of cross examination is certainly a sacrosanct right but on questions of facts, there has to be a plausible defence or a case to be put up to the witnesses to rebut their evidences or to question their veracity. Bald averments of prejudice are not sufficient that the denial of right of cross examination has resulted into prejudice. Rather when Revenue Authorities are recording evidences during assessment proceedings they are discharging duty imposed under law and the presumption is attached that the records are correct. The statement of concerned Patwari could have been very well rebutted by merely production of Revenue records before Ld. CIT(A) or even this Tribunal. As a matter of fact, it appears from record that the agreements themselves were not produced disclosing as to what were the survey numbers of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
