KRISHAN KUMAR JHAMB vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

Income Tax Appeal No.691 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Income Tax Appeal No.691 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.12.2008 Krishan Kumar Jhamb ....Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer & another. ....Respondents. **** CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL. **** Present: Ms.Aman Bahri, Advocate, foro the appellant. **** Adarsh Kumar Goel, J

Income Tax Appeal No.691 of 2008 2 by wrongly treating advances as Cash Credits by applying Section 68 of the Income Tax Act ? d. Whether the revenue can be permitted to made double addition of the same item (Advances in the present case) in the assessable income of the assessee ? e. Whether the contradictory findings of the Revenue authorities can be applied to the prejudice of the appellant ? f. Whether the Revenue Authorities have wrongly interpreted and applied the Civil Court Judgment ? g. Whether the onus to disclose the source of income of the source has to be discharged by the assessee? h. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the value determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), be adopted and ignore the valuation report of the approved valuer filed by the Appellant which report was, infact considered by the Assessing Officer and adopted after making some additions, in view of the judgment Bholanath Majumdar vs. ITO & others reported as (1996) 221 ITR 608 and other similar judgments ? i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing officer was correct in law in referring the matter to the Valuation Officer in the absence of any adverse material on record even when the valuation report was filed by the assessee/appellant and adopted ?

Income Tax Appeal No.691 of 2008 3 j. Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in facts and in law ?

Income Tax Appeal No.691 of 2008 4

As regards the cash credits, the finding of the Tribunal is as follows:- “The facts are that the assessee received the impugned amount ostensibly from six persons as a consequence of agreements for sale of shops. This fact does not stand proved when affidavits were filed from some of the persons for the reason that the persons could not be produced for authenticating their signatures and explaining the contents of the affidavits. Similarly, production of agreement to sale, incomplete and unsigned, does not lead to the inference that the monies were received in consideration of the agreement to sell. What is surprising is that these persons were not handed over the possession of the shops and even the money was not returned to them till date of hearing before us. It will be inconceivable that all the six persons, after paying substantial monies, did not turn up to take possession of shops and even did not demand the monies back from the assessee. Most of the cases relied upon by the assessee are in regard to raising of share capitals by companies, in which courts held that if the real subscriber could not be identified, the right course would have been to bring the money to tax in the hands of the persons to whom the monies belonged. In this case, the conduct of the assessee and surrounding circumstances show that the money belonged to the assessee as no benefit was passed on to the alleged intending buyers. Then, there are cases to the effect that while the assessee is required to prove the source of money, he is not Income Tax Appeal No.691 of 2008 5 required to prove the source of the source. In the instant case, source of the money has not been proved and the learned CIT (A) has not really gone into the source of the source. Then there are cases that if the creditors have been identified, the monies have been received by cheques and P.A. numbers have been furnished, the addition cannot be made merely because the persons could not be traced. In the instant case, the monies have been received in cash and not by way of cheques.”