HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 429 / 2008 Bhagwan Das & Ors ----Appellant Versus C I T Alwar & Ors ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 29/05/2017 1. By way of this appeal, appellant has assailed judgment and order Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeal of assessee. 2. This Court while admitting matter framed following questions of law:- 1. Whether onus to prove source of expenditure u/s 69C of Act can validly be shifted on appellant without first proving existence of such expenditure by revenue beyond doubt? 2. Whether ld. ITAT acted on total misconception of law in replying alone on statement of appellant recorded during survey operation u/s 133A of Act for sustaining impugned addition though such statement has no evidentiary value for want of powers to administer oath during such survey operation? 3. Tribunal while considering case of assessee (2 of 3) [ITA-429/2008] in para 6 observed as under:- 6. After considering arguments advanced by parties, we do not find substance in contentions of assessee because onus always lies upon claimant to establish its claim. In present case onus was lying on assessee to establish its claim that Navin Broker, Jaipur on behalf of assessee had made transaction, he had made payment to seller and received payment against sale and assessee had only received Rs. 4,510/- from Navin Broker, Jaipur towards profit margin. assessee failed to discharged this onus even at appellate stage. We also concur with this view of ld. CIT(A) that even for sake of argument claim of assessee is accepted that he had made transactions through alleged Navin Broker, Jaiput still case of assessee does not gain any strength because purchases were made in cash and assessee had not claimed that cash was paid by Navin Broker, Jaipur. It is admitted practice that payments are always made by purchasing party and brokers are paid only their brokerage. Under these circumstances we are of view that ld. CIT(A) has rightly come to conclusion that it is clear cut case where assessee had made investment of Rs. 4,58,000/- outside books of accounts while upholding action of A.O. in making addition of Rs. 4,58,000/- in terms of provision of S.69 of I.T. Act. first appellate order is thus upheld. ground is thus rejected. 4. In our considered opinion, Tribunal while considering case has rightly observed that it was duty of assessee to rebut to prove that amount was paid by Navin Broker. (3 of 3) [ITA-429/2008] 5. Hence, both issues are required to be answered in favour of department against assessee. 6. appeal stands dismissed. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/19 Bhagwan Das & Ors v. CIT Alwar & Or