SANTOSH DEVI,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 4(1), GURGAON

At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee stating that her Counsel was unavailable on the date of hearing. Sh. Mahesh present to take a date was stated to be the son of the assessee. The adjournment application was rejected as on considering the material available on record, it was considered appropriate to proceed with the present appeal after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR . Accordingly, after hearing the same, adjournment application was rejected holding :

The Ld. Sr. DR relying upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) submitted that the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings was required to justify investing a sum of Rs. 17,96,025/- used for booking flats in M.Tech Developers. It was her submission that during the assessment proceedings, the AO passed the order u/s 144 of the Act as the assessee failed to make any submission and before the CIT(A) the assessee filed evidences which were found to be not sufficient. Accordingly, it was her

“ Regarding the household expenditure: The Appellant is resident of village. She has own house for living, own cattle for milk as well as own agriculture land for household vegetables as well as grain. Besides this the husband of the ‘appellant is filled an appeal before your goodself office vide appeal no. 321/15-16 for AY 2008-09. Wherein Hon’ble decide the appeal on dated 21.02.2017 with addition a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on estimate basis for household expenses for whole family.

I have gone through the submissions and the findings of the respective authorities. On a consideration thereof, I find that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case the assessee admittedly remained sanguine under the belief that since the source of investment was her husband who had the funds hence, her statement and explanation that the amount was gifted by way of Registered Gift Deed was sufficient compliance of law as true state of affairs as known by her are stated. The assessee's son present at the time of hearing stated that at no stage or occasion the assessee was confronted with the fact that the statement and evidences relied upon by her were not sufficient and that there was a need to further elaborate and support the claim. On considering the facts there can be no two opinions on the fact that the taxpayer admittedly has been extremely naive to believe that mere submissions known to be true by itself is sufficient acceptable explanation in the eyes of law. I notice that this is a constant belief prevalent amongst the ITA 6661/Del/2017 3 of 4 first time/marginal taxpayers who believing in their innate honesty and righteousness in truthfully declaring the facts as known to them expect the tax authorities to blindly accept them unquestionably. The tax authorities unfortunately constantly exposed to the manipulative strategies of the system players seeking relief by somehow trying to bring it within the bounds of the provisions of the law become so immune to the bonafide honest pleadings that they at times fail to distinguish the honest amongst such persons. The prevalent corrosive pervading cynicism at times results in brushing aside the claims. There is no escaping that in the eyes of law the statements even if made truthfully in the absence of supporting documentary evidence etc cannot take the place of acceptable standards of proof. However endeavor to give appropriate directions or provide opportunity to place true and supporting evidences necessarily must be actively encouraged. The pleas of innocent tax payers in achieving the results and numbers should not be sacrificed in the interests of maintaining targets. To my mind, such actions come with a huge price, one of which is alienating the honest tax payers which eventuality ought not to be countenanced by the state at any cost. The other being that the shrinking, honest, god fearing tax compliant citizenery may be unknowingly pushed in the arms of unscrupulous and dubious fly by night advisors. To ensure that such is not the plight it is for the tax administration to come out with ways and means and put its best foot forward and ensure that proper advice and guidance is given to the assessee's. To my mind, the realities of the times and the persons involved cannot be ignored. It is seen that before the CIT(A), some cash flow statement of the assessee’s husband was relied upon which was discarded by the CIT(Appeals). However, before addressing the availability of cash, it is necessary to address the sources of the husband’s income and since the entire issue hinges on the capacity of the husband at the relevant point of time to advance the stated gift to his wife the facts need to be considered.