Sh. Ishwar Dass Garg, Ludhiana vs Assessee

Sh.Ishwar Dass Garg, Vs. The A.C.I.T., Near Sherpur Chowk, Circle V, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN No. ADXPD6392C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : S/Shri Sudhir Sehgal & Ashok Goyal Respondent by : Shri S.K.Mittal, DR

Date of hearing : 02.07.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 06.07.2015

PER H.L.KARWA, VP :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against

the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals)-II, Ludhiana dated 25.7.2012 relating to assessment

year 2002-03.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following

grounds :

2

"1. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-ll, Ludhiana has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening of the case u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961.

2. That the reopening is bad in law since, there is no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer, which is one of the requirement for reopening of the case u/s 148.

3. Notwithstanding the above said facts, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of the following amounts towards the income of the assessee:-

Sh.Vipan Kumar Rs.5,01,250.00

Sh.Ashok Kumar Rs.5,01,250.00

3. Vide ground Nos.1 and 2 of the appeal, the assessee

has challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

under section 147/148 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (in short 'the Act').

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that for the

assessment year 2002-03, the assessee submitted his return

of income on 20.5.2002 declaring the total income at

Rs.1,74,390/-. The said return was processed under

section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of

information received from Director of Investigation-1, New

Delhi, proceedings under section 147 were initiated and notice

under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.3.2009, which

was served upon the assessee on same day. In response to

the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee

submitted his return of income declaring the total income at

Rs.1,74,390/- on 29.4.2009. During the course of assessment

proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices under 3 sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act alongwith questionnaire.

The Assessing Officer vide questionnaire dated 20.11.2009

required the assessee to show cause as to why the sum of

Rs.10,02,500/- should not be treated as investment from

undisclosed sources. In response to the said query, the

assessee explained that the amount mentioned in the names

of S/Shri Vipin Kumar and Ashok Kumar Vindal are unsecured

loans received through account payee draft. The assessee

also submitted few documents to prove the identity,

genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors. According

to the Assessing Officer, on the basis of the above documents,

the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness and

creditworthiness of the creditors. The Assessing Officer has

also observed that the assessee could not produce any bank

account statements of S/Shri Vipin Kumar and Ashok Kumar

Vindal. The assessee also failed to prove the identity of these

persons. The assessee also failed to produce his bank

account statement for assessment year 2002-03. The

assessee failed to discharge the onus, which is cast on the

assessee under section 68 of the Act. Consequently, the

Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.10,02,500/- under

section 68 of the Act.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the

assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT

(Appeals). The assessee challenged the validity of reopening

of the assessment before the learned CIT (Appeals), and the

learned CIT (Appeals) held that the reopening was valid. The 4

relevant findings given by the learned CIT (Appeals) are

reproduced hereinbelow :

4.3 I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions. The AO while reopening the case had recorded the following reasons:-

As per information received from Director of Investigation (1), New Delhi, vide No.4273 dated 09.03.2006 through CIT-I, Ludhiana it is found that during the previous year i.e. 2001-02 relevant to the assessment year 2002-03, the assessee has received bogus accommodation entries for a total sum of Rs.10,02,500/- from Shri Vipin Kumar & Shri Ashok Kumar from bank account No.8378 and 11282 respectively in Jai Laxmi Coop Bank, Fatehpuri, New Delhi as under :-

Sr.No. Name of the Bank Date Amount In favour persons having A/c of bank account in No. your branch 1. Shri Vipin Kumar 8378 05.03.02 5,01,250/- Shri Ishwar Dass Garg, Ludhiana 2. Shri Ashok Kumar 11282 05.03.02 5,01,250/- Shri Ishwar Dass Garg, Ludhiana

As per return receipts data available on computer, it is seen that the assessee has filed his return of income for the A/Y 2002-03 declaring income at Rs.1,74,390/-. It is therefore, evident that the assessee has invested a sum. of Rs.l0,02,500/- from his undisclosed income in obtaining these bogus accommodation entries. I have therefore, reasons to believe that income of Rs. 10,02,500/- as above, has escaped investment within meaning 148 of l.T. Act, 1961. Hence it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. "

The contention of the appellant the reopening was done, without examining the return of income of the appellant, is therefore not correct.

4.4 Copy of the reasons was duly provided to the appellant. Perusal of the reasons shows that AO had applied his mind to the information received from the O/o the Director of Income Tax (Inv.), New Delhi. He 5

had compared the formation received with the information available in the return of income and thereafter had reasons to believe that income of Rs.10,25,500/- had escaped Assessment. In these circumstances the contention of the appellant that the notice Was served without application of mind is not correct. The assessment proceedings Were reopened on the basis of information received from DIT(Inv.), New Delhi. For acquiring jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act the A.O. is required to have in his possession certain material or information on the basis of which he could prima-facie have reason to believe that income escaped assessment. Communication received by an Assessing Officer for discharge of his official duties is valid information for issue of notice u/s 148. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Money Growth Investment & Consultants (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2012) 71 DTR 3l7 (Delhi)(High Court) wherein it was held that material and information provided by Investigation Wing to the AO, on the basis of which he recorded reasons and reopened the assessment, throw considerable doubt on the veracity, correctness, completeness and truth of particulars furnished by the assessee at the time of the original assessment and therefore notice issued by AO under Section 148 was valid. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following case laws:-

i) Srinivasa Khandasari Udyog Vs. ITO (ITAT, Bang) 56 ITD 146

ii) ITO Vs. Purushotam Das Bangur & Anr. (SC) 224 ITR 362

iii) Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs. Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115

iv) H.A. Nanji & Co.Vs. ITO (Cal) 120 ITR 593

v) Sohan Singh Vs. CIT (Del) 158 ITR 174

vi) Rattan Gupta Vs. CIT (P&H) 234 ITR 220

The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rattan Gupta Vs. CIT (Supra) observed as under :-

"At this stage, the question is not whether what is stated in the letter dated 17.02.1993, or the conclusion drawn from the appraisal report are true or not. The only question on this stage is about the relevancy of the material for formation of requisite belief It cannot be held that the letter and the appraisal report do not constitute the relevant material. It is a different matter that during inquiry the petitioner may be able to establish that the conclusions 6

are not correct. In our view, there is no illegality in the issue of impugned notice. "

Similarly, information received from other agencies like CIB Enforcement Directorate or from other Assessing Officers constitute material for reopening of assessment and notice issued u/s 148 in these circumstances is also valid. Reliance ,in this regard is placed on the following decisions:-

i) CGT Vs. Susheela Shanmugasundaram (Mad) 242 ITR 176

ii) ITO Vs. Gurinder Kuar (ITAT, Del) 102 ITD 189

iii) Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Mad) 302 ITR 275

4.5 After initiation of proceedings, the A.O. could conclude on the basis of other information and explanation of the appellant that no income had escaped assessment, yet for acquiring the jurisdiction, the A.O. could still have valid basis on the basis of information available at the time of initiating action u/s 147/148 of the Act to have prima-facie reason to believe that such income escaped assessment. The information received by the A.O., as mentioned above, could very well make him prima-facie have such reason to believe that income escaped assessment. Further, as the AO has initiated the proceedings on the basis of above mentioned specific information it could not be said that the action of the A.O. was on the basis of certain surmises or conjectures only. It could also not be said that the material in possession of the A.O, could just make him have reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income escaped assessment.

Moreover adequacy of satisfaction of AO is not justice-able as was held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Gurera Gas Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (258 ITR 170) and in case of Swaraj Engine Ltd, Vs. ACIT (260 ITR 202) following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cash of Phool Chand Bajrang Lai Vs. ITO (203 ITR 456). The ratio of the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel would, therefore, not help the case of the appellant.

> 4.6 As regards the appellant's contention that the notice was issued with the approval of CIT instead of JCIT, and is therefore bad in law, I do not agree with the same. Approval of JCIT is included while taking the approval of CIT. It is not the appellant's case that approval of JCIT had not been taken. Any proposal for approval of CIT goes through JCIT and JCIT's approval is therefore obtained before the proposal goes through to CIT. No prejudice has been caused to the appellant by issuance of notice with the approval of Commissioner of Income Tax. Moreover, it was not a defect which could not be cured under Section 7 292B of the Act, and the reassessment proceedings had been validly initiated. The Section 292B was inserted whereby no return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding shall be rendered invalid merely on account of any mistake, defect or omission where the return, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding in substance and effect are in conformity with or according to the intention and purpose of the Act. By incorporating this provision, it has been made clear that purely technical objections carrying no substance shall not come in the way of validity of assessment proceedings etc. In other words, minor defects or irregularities in the circumstances aforesaid, would not negate the validity of the proceedings initiated by the assessing officer and the assessee would not be able to raise technical or venial defects in this regard. AR of the appellant has not pointed out any prejudice having been caused to the appellant. In the present facts and circumstances, notice issued under Section 148 of the Act by the assessing officer shall not render the proceedings invalid as the same are in substance and effect according to the intent and purpose of the Act falling under Section 292B of the Act and the proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Swaran Kanta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1989) 176 ITR 291 (Pb. & Hr.) and Deoria Oxygen Company v. Commissioner of Income Taxi, (2007) 210 CTR Reports 509. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 6.12.2010 in Income Tax Reference Nos. 15 of 2000, in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, , Amritsar, Versus Rajbir Singh Karta of Ch. Kesho Dass (HUF), Pathankot.

In view of the above facts and the case laws discussed above, this ground of appeal is dismissed."

6. I have heard the rival submissions and have also

perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, in this

case the return filed by the assessee on 20.5.2002 was

processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently,

information was received from the office of Director of

Investigation-I, New Delhi to the effect that the assessee has

received bogus accommodation entries for a total sum of

Rs.10,02,500/- from S/Shri Vipin Kumar and Ashok Kumar 8

Vindal from bank account No.8378 and 11282 respectively in

Jai Laxmi Cooperative Bank, Fatehpuri, New Delhi as under :

Sr.No. Name of the Bank Date Amount In favour persons having A/c of bank account in No. your branch 1. Shri Vipin Kumar 8378 05.03.02 5,01,250/- Shri Ishwar Dass Garg, Ludhiana 2. Shri Ashok Kumar 11282 05.03.02 5,01,250/- Shri Ishwar Dass Garg, Ludhiana

7. In view of the nature of the above entries and the

amount involved, it appeared to be an entry of accommodation

nature. In that view of the matter, the Assessing Officer

formed an opinion that the assessee's income to the extent of

Rs.10,02,500/- has escaped assessment in terms of provisions

of section 147 of the Act, and notice under section 148 of the

Act, was issued to the assessee after recording reasons

mentioned in para 4.3 of the order of learned CIT (Appeals)

reproduced hereinabove.

8. In my opinion, the issue at hand is squarely covered

against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the

decision of this Bench of the Tribunal dated 15.6.2015 in the

case of Ms.Sushila Singla Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ludhiana in ITA

No.780/Chd/2012 relating to assessment year 2002-03. The

facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case of

Ms.Sushila Singla (supra). In the case of Ms.Sushila Singla,

the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act.

Subsequently, information was received from ACIT, CC-V, 9

Ludhiana to the effect that his assessee one Shri Jagdish

Duggal, resident of Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana had disclosed to

have made a gift of Rs.5 lacs during the assessment year

2002-03 in favour of Ms.Sushila Singla. In view of the

nature of this entry and quantum of gift involved, it appeared

to be an entry of accommodation nature. In that view of the

matter, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the

assessee's income to the extent of Rs.5 lacs representing the

value of so-called gift has escaped assessment in terms of

provisions of section 147 of the Act, and notice under section

148 of the Act, was issued to the assessee after recording

following reasons :

"In this case the assessee has received gif t of Rs. 5,00,000/- f rom Shri Jagdish Duggal, 38-G, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana f rom the Bank Account No. 16503 of Shri Jagdish Duggal maintained with the Canara Bank, Bharat Nagar Cho wk, Ludhiana.

This inf ormation has been received f rom Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-V, Ludhiana vide his letter No. ACIT/CC.V/Ldh/24 dated 7.4.2004 addressed to the Addl.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Range VII, Ludhiana for considering appropriate action in the hands of the donees.

That the nature of this entry appears to be an accommodation entry.

I have theref ore, reasons to believe that the above said amount of gif t received by the assessee requires through investigation by reopening the case u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In vie w of the gif t received by the assessee notice u/s 148 is issued f or the assessment year 2002-03."

9. In the case of Ms.Sushila Singla (supra), the 10

learned CIT (Appeals) observed that the information received

by the Assessing Officer constituted 'reason to believe', prima

facie that the income chargeable to tax had escaped

assessment in the hands of the assessee. He further observed

that the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings on the

basis of specific information and, therefore, it cannot be said

that the action of the Assessing Officer was on the basis of

surmises or conjectures only. When the matter came up in

appeal before the Tribunal, this Bench of the Tribunal uphold

the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), observing as under :

" 9. In the present case originally return filed by the assessee on 6.9.2003 was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and a notice u/s 148 was issued on 20.3.2008. The assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment as per the submissions noted herein above. As regards the scope of the expression 'reason' in the phrase 'reason to believe' and also the scope and effect of section 147 as substituted w.e.f. April 1, 1989, as also sections 148 to 150 has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v Rajesh Jhaveri (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) at page 511 & 512 and observed as under:-

"16. Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In 11

other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Whether the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction (see ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. P. Ltd. [1996] 217 ITR 597 (SC) ; Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC).

17. The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied : firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of that year. Both these conditions were conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section 147 existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is, however, to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso.

18. So long as the ingredients of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceeding under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued."

10. In the instant case also the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. In the case of ACIT v Rajesh Jhaveri the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 12

observed that word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. What is required is "reason to believe" but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at this stage. This is so because the formation of the belief is within the realm of the subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. From the above decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that at the time of recording reasons for initiating processing u/s 147 of the Act, it is not necessary that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertain the facts by legal evidence or conclusion.

At the initial stage what is required is "reason to believe" but not established fact of escapement of income. At the time of issuance of notice u/s 148, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief. The question whether the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at this stage. In the instant case, Assessing Officer received an information from ACIT, CC-V, Ludhiana that assessee has received gift of Rs. 5 lakhs from Shri Jagdish Duggal, 38G, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana from bank account No. 16503 of Shri Jagdish Duggal maintained with Canara Bank, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana. The Assessing Officer has also this information that the nature of this entry was an accommodation entry. In my opinion, the above information / material received by the Assessing Officer was relevant and afforded a live link or nexus to the formation of the prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in the assessee's hands. Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that reopening of the assessment was invalid.

While taking such a view I am fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajat Export Import India Pvt. Ltd v ITO (2012) 341 ITR 135 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under:-

13

"At the stage when reasons are recorded for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer is not required to build a fool proof case for making addition to the assessee's income ; all that he is required to do at that stage is to form a prima facie opinion or belief that income has escaped assessment. The relevancy of the material before the Assessing Officer is to be judged only from that perspective and not from the perspective as to whether the material is sufficient or adequate to sustain the addition ultimately. That will be an aspect which the Assessing Officer will examine and decide in the course of the reassessment proceedings after hearing the assessee in the manner required by law."

11. In the above case, Investigation Wing provided the information along with cheque number and bank details that the assessee has taken cheque from entry provider and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that there is reason to believe prima-facie that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court further held that material before the Assessing Officer was relevant and afforded a live link or nexus to the formation of the prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in the assessee's hands

12. In view of the above, I do not see any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hold that reopening of the assessment was valid and accordingly I uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal."

10. The decision rendered by this Bench of the Tribunal

in the case of Ms.Sushila Singla (supra) is squarely applicable

to the facts of the present case. In this case, Investigation

Wing provided the information that during the financial year

2001-02 relevant to assessment year 2002-03, the assessee

had received bogus accommodation entries for a total sum of 14

Rs.10,02,500/- from S/Shri Vipin Kumar and Ashok Kumar

from Bank Account Nos.8378 and 11282 respectively in Jai

Laxmi Cooperative Bank, Fatehpuri, New Delhi. The details

were also submitted to the Assessing Officer. In my opinion,

on the basis of above information, the Assessing Officer was

justified in forming a prima facie opinion or belief that income

has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. The

material before the Assessing Officer was relevant and

afforded a live link or nexus to the formation of the belief.

The information, so received by the Assessing Officer, was

credible and not a mere gossip. Considering the entire facts

and circumstances of the present case and also the order of

the Tribunal (SMC Bench) passed in the case of Ms.Sushila

Singla referred to above, I do not see any merit in ground

Nos.1 and 2 of the appeal. Therefore, I have no hesitation in

rejecting these grounds of appeal.

11. Vide ground No.3 of the appeal, the assessee has

challenged the action of the learned CIT (Appeals) in

confirming the addition of Rs.10,02,500/- allegedly borrowed

from S/Shri Vipin Kumar and Ashok Kumar Vindal. The

learned CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition of

Rs.10,02,500/- for the reasons stated in paragraphs 7.3 to

7.8 of his order. The learned CIT (Appeals) confirmed the

addition on the ground that the assessee failed to establish

the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness

of the creditors. He further observed that by merely claiming

that the credits were unsecured loans and by submitting the 15

confirmations of so-called creditors, the genuineness of the

transactions has not been proved.

12. I have heard the learned representatives of both the

parties at length. It is well settled law that in order to

discharge the onus, the assessee is required to prove the

following ingredients :

i) the identity of the creditor, ii) the capacity of the creditor to advance money; and iii) the genuineness of the transaction.

13. S/Shri Sudhir Sehgal and Ashok Goyal, learned

counsel for the assessee submitted that during the course of

assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted the

evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness and

genuineness of the cash credits. He further submitted that

the authorities below have made the addition in the hands of

the assessee merely on the basis that the assessee has not

filed bank statement, which stand of the Revenue is not

correct in law. He further submitted that the assessee has

filed complete addresses, PAN Numbers of the parties and

both the parties are assessed to tax. In my considered view,

the assessee has not furnished the relevant evidence in order

to prove the genuineness of the transactions and

creditworthiness of the creditors. Copies of confirmations of

the parties are available at pages 7 and 16 of the Paper Book.

However, no date is mentioned on so-called confirmations.

The assessee has submitted the copy of acknowledgement of

wealth-tax return and copy of acknowledgement of income-tax 16

return of Shri Ashok Kumar Vindal. These documents are

available at pages 10 to 14 of the assessee's Paper Book.

These documents relate to assessment year 2001-02.

Similarly, in the case of Shri Vipin Kumar, the assessee has

submitted a copy of acknowledgement of wealth-tax return

and copy of acknowledgement of income-tax return, which are

available at pages 18 to 21 of the Paper Book. These

documents also relate to assessment year 2001-02. I am

fully in agreement with the observations of the learned CIT

(Appeals) that all the documents/evidences submitted by the

assessee pertain to financial year 2000-01 relevant to

assessment year 2001-02, whereas, the transactions involving

accommodation entries are dated 5.3.2002 i.e. financial year

2001-02 relevant to assessment year 2002-03. There is no

material on record to prove the creditworthiness of S/Shri

Vipin Kumar and Ashok Kumar Vindal for the relevant

assessment year i.e. 2002-03. There is no evidence on

record to demonstrate that S/Shri Vipin Kumar and Ashok

Kumar Vindal had requisite amount with them in order to

advance the same to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has

specifically asked the assessee to produce evidence relevant to

assessment year 2002-03 in order to establish the

genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of

the creditors. The Assessing Officer has categorically

observed that neither any bank account statements of S/Shri

Vipin Kumar and Ashok Kumar Vindal, nor any proof

regarding identity of these persons was furnished. The

assessee also failed to produce his bank account statement 17

for assessment year 2002-03. I am also in agreement with

this observation of the learned CIT (Appeals) that although

the assessee has submitted certain documents (not relevant to

assessment year 2002-03), he has not been able to establish

the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of

the creditors. The learned CIT (Appeals) has correctly

observed that by merely claiming that the credits were

unsecured loans and by submitting confirmations from so-

called creditors, the genuineness of the transactions cannot

be proved. In the instant case, the assessee has miserably

failed to prove the creditworthiness of the alleged creditors as

well as the genuineness of the transactions. There is no

evidence on record to prove the above ingredients of cash

credits. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances

of the present case, I uphold the order of the learned CIT

(Appeals) and dismiss the ground No.3 of the appeal.

14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 6th

day of July, 2015.

Sd/- (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 6 t h July, 2015

*Rati*

Copy to: The Appellant/The Respondent/The CIT(A)/The CIT/The DR.

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh