IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.480 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.8.2010 Avtar Singh. -----Appellant. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the assessee. Mr. T.S. Joshi, Advocate for the revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against order dated 31.12.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh for the assessment year 2004-05, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and circumstances, evidences on record and established Principles of Law that ITAT was justified in confirming the orders of the authorities below in finalizing the assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without conforming to the proviso to Section 144(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? I.T.A. No.480 of 2009 ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances, evidences on record and established Principles of Law the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders of the authorities below in treating the investment in purchase of agricultural land to the extent of Rs. 5,05,940/- plus registration charges and deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-in the Bank Account and also interest income thereof as income from unknown sources by ignoring the withdrawals from Bank Accounts being income from agriculture and past savings duly assessed by the A.O. ? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances, evidences on record and established Principles of Law the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders of the authorities below in treating the investment in purchase of agricultural land to the extent of Rs.5,05,940/- plus registration charges by the wife and son both being independent assesses thereof as income from unknown sources of the appellant by ignoring the fact that the same amounts have also been added in their respective hands ? iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances, evidences on record and established Principles of Law the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders of the authorities below in making the impugned addition on account of investment by wife and son which leads to double taxation which is unwarranted under any and all provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that of natural justice? 2 I.T.A. No.480 of 2009 v) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse and against the provisions of law?” 2. During the course of assessment, for the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee filed his return declaring his income to be agricultural income. The Assessing Officer after giving notice to the assessee came to the conclusion that the assessee had undisclosed income and he invested the same in purchase of land in his own name and in the names of his son and wife. It was further found that he had deposited a sum of Rs.1 lac in bank which also represented undisclosed income. Accordingly, addition of Rs.16,08,890/- was made, which was upheld by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. The addition so made was attributed to the appellant and to his son and wife. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is as under:- 9. We have heard the rival parties with respect to the addition of Rs.5,05,940/-on account of land purchased in the name of Shri Parshottam Singh. The claim of the assessee is that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-was available as loan from Shri Balbir Singh which stood duly confirmed by way of affidavit. In this connection, we have perused the affidavit of Shri Balbir Singh and also the statement recorded by the Assessing officer which are placed in the paper Book. Having perused the material on recor4d, we do not find any infirmity in the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer. Ostensibly, it is a mere bald assertion by the said creditor of having advanced money in cash to Shri Parshottam Singh. In any 3 I.T.A. No.480 of 2009 case, neither there is any evidence in support of the availability of funds with said Shri Balbir Singh and not is there any justification made out for advancing of cash loan to Shri Parshottam Singh. Therefore, the explanation of the funds to make investment in the purchase of land in the name of Shri Parshottam Singh, in our view, has been correctly rejected by both the lower authorities. We find no reasons to interfere in such conclusion. Further more we find that in so far as the justification for making such addition in the hands of the assessee is concerned, the stand of the Assessing Officer is justified. Admittedly, the Assessing officer has recorded a finding that Shri Parshottam Singh has no independent source of income and neither has the assessee furnished any evidence to show that any income was being earned by Shri Parshottam Singh by doing of any activity of persons skill. The explanation of the assessee in this regard is based on pure bald assertions without any factual support. Thus, we uphold the stand of the income tax authorities on this issue also. 10. Now coming to the investment towards purchase of agriculture land in the name Smt. Jasbir Kaur, wife of the assessee amounting to Rs,5,05,940/-. In this regard, the explanation of the assessee stands on similar footing as was with regard to the purchase of agriculture land in the name of his son Shri Parshottam Singh. Herein also, the Assessing Officer comes to a finding that there is no independent source of income in the hands of Smt. Jasbir Kaur and accordingly, the investment in question was considered in the hands of the assessee. There is no independent source of income 4 I.T.A. No.480 of 2009 in the hands of Smt. Jasbir Kaur and accordingly, the investment in question was considered in the hands of the assessee. Ther4e is no specific negation of this finding by the assessee, either before the CIT (Appeals) or even before us. The only point brought out by the assessee was that Smt. Jasbir Kaur had arranged for the loan of Rs.3,00,000/-from one Shri Labh Singh. The said explanation has been considered by the Assessing Officer but was not found satisfactory. The said creditor Shri Labh Singh furnished an affidavit and his statement was also recorded by the Assessing Officer. For the reasons discussed in relation to Shri Parshottam Singh in the foregoing paragraphs, herein also we find no justification to uphold the plea of the assessee. The arrangements of the assessee before us are also on similar lines as were in relation to the investment in the name of Shri Parshottam Singh. In this regard as the situation is identical to Shri Parshottam Singh, herein also we find no justification to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the lower authorities. 11. Thus, in conclusion, we find no reasons to interfere with the addition of Rs.16,08,890/-made by the Assessing officer as unexplained investment in the purchase of agriculture land and the same in our view, has been correctly sustained by the CIT (Appeals). 12. In so far as the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- representing deposit of cash, in the bank account on 31.3.2004 is concerned, herein also we find no credible explanation forthcoming from the assessee. The only explanation offered by the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the same is out of 5 I.T.A. No.480 of 2009 agriculture income earned. The explanation offered by the assessee before us also remains on similar footing. This explanation in our view is too general in nature and does not absolve the assessee from onus cast on him to explain source of the deposit made in the bank account. The income tax authorities, in our considered opinion, were justified in making the impugned addition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since son of the appellant and his wife were independent persons, having their own sources of income, income in the hands of son and wife of the appellant was not taken into account. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. The finding recorded above shows that the plea of son having separate income was not found to be acceptable and the material on record has been duly appreciated. The finding recorded being on a question of fact and same not being perverse, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 17, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 6