A.F.R. Reserved on 24.10.2017 Delivered on 09.11.2017 Court No. - 4 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 24 of 2008 Appellant :- Smt.Sheela Ahuja @ Lata Ahuja Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shakeel Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- S.S.C., Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J. (Per: Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.) present appeal arise from decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24.08.2007 passed in I.T.A. No. 63/Lucknow/2007 for assessment year 2000-01. following questions of law have been framed by assessee which are quoted hereinbelow:- (a) Whether under facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in confirming order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) justifying issuance of notice under Section 147/148 of Act? (b) Whether upon facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in not considering vital issue of not issuing copies of return with annexures filed by appellant while observing that same is administrative decision, which has to be taken up with departmental authorities? (c) Whether upon facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in holding that appellant should have filed revised return after receiving notice under Section 148 of Act? (d) Whether upon facts and circumstances of case, finding of Tribunal is correct in justifying notice under Section 148 of Act by holding that there were no assessment proceedings pending before Assessing Officer after 31.03.2003? (e) Whether upon facts and circumstances of case, confirmation of additions regarding alleged unexplained gift and alleged unexplained credit in bank account is correct in law? Heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for appellant 2 and Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Revenue. brief facts of case are that in assessment year 2000- 01 appellant has filed her return. During pendency of return notice dated 28.11.2003 has been issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred as 'The Act'. reasons for issuance of notice under Section 148 of Act was that appellant had not shown true and fair as well as correct facts of her income and certain concealment of income was noticed on account of information which has been received by Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation). According to said information, it is found that appellant has received bogus gift amounting to sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- which, in fact, was income of appellant introduced in her funds in shape of gifts. In response to notice issued under Section 148, appellant has informed, vide letter dated 12.01.2004, that her return which had already been filed on 15.05.2000 be treated as response to notice. After said reply notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) are issued along with detailed questionnaire. After discussion with authorised representative about said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which has been transferred through cheque from account of two persons of Co-operative Bank, Kanpur, assessing authority found no satisfactory reply and he has noticed that appellant given formal reply namely that notice under Section 143(2) cannot be issued because time limit for scrutiny has already been expired in month of March, 2002. assessing 3 authority has proceeded on basis of reply and information which has been gathered during investigation and he arrived at conclusion that said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been received by appellant through cheques from two persons who operated bank account of appellant. relevant extract of conclusion of assessing authority is quoted herein below. From perusal of bank a/c of M.K. Shukla & R.A. Shukla as received from Directorate of Income-tax (Inv.) Kanpur, it is clear that persons are habitual donors and had given entries to so many persons. assessee was not able to produce these persons for confirmation of gift of Rs. 3,00000/- and creditworthiness of donors could not be proved by assessee. Thus income of Rs. 3,00000/- is provede to be income of assessee. Now coming to details of bank statement of assessee for period under consideration, it is noticed that following credits were made in this account: 1) 05.08.199 by clearing Ch. No. 304637 Rs. 2,00,000/- 2) 05.08.1999 by clearing Ch. No. 720298 Rs. 1,00,000/- 3) 01.09.1999 by transfer CC2507 - Rs. 1,00,000/- 4) 21.09.1999 by transfer - Rs. 1,00,000/- 5) 10.03.2000 by cash - Rs. 9,000/- 6) 10.03.2000 by cash - Rs. 1,000/- since no evidences of above credits have been provided by assessee, sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- as detailed above is being trated as income of assessee. assessee never came forward to prove above transactions hence she concealed true and fair facts of her income and is to be penalized as per provisions contained in Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. For this purpose penalty proceedings are separately initiated. On basis of above facts, income of assessee is computed as under: Unexplained gift Rs. 3,00,000/- Other unexplained credits in bank a/c Rs. 5,10,000/- Total income Rs. 8,10,000/- appeal has been filed before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by appellant. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dismissed appeal by affirming order passed by Assessing Authority by observing that appellant has failed to prove genuineness of credits. 4 C.I.T. (Appeals) has further observed that appellant has not offerred any explanation regarding credits in bank account. He has further observed that on other hand, Assessing Officer has proved that credits were not genuine, though, he is not supposed to prove it as per law. Aggrieved by order of CIT (Appeals) appeal has been preferred by appellant before ITAT. appellant has reiterated same submissions as had been submitted before CIT (Appeals). Tribunal has decided appeal by considering submissions and objections of appellant and as such has held that initiation of proceedings under Section 148 is fully justified and submission has been properly considered by CIT (Appeals) and discussed in his order particularly in para 10. ITAT has also observed that assessing authority was fully justified in initiating proceedings under Section 148 of Act and appellant/assessee should have responded to notice issued by Assessing Officer under Section 148 either by filing revised return or should have objected proceedings. In view of aforesaid, Tribunal has held that no interference is called for in order of CIT (Appeals). argument with regard to permission to assessee for inspection of material, Tribunal has observed that fact reveals that gift of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been received but same has not been disclosed by assessee and since intimation from investigation unit is administrative in nature therefore same cannot be permitted to be demonstrated to assessee. claim of appellant/ assessee is that inspection of record is essential for 5 disposal of case has been rejected. At end Tribunal has held that since assessee has failed to produce donors as well as creditworthiness of donors whereas various opportunities were allowed to appellant, which appellant failed to furnish any explanation, there is no option but to confirm order passed by authorities below. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for parties and after perusal of orders passed by assessing authority, order of CIT (Appeals) and impugned order of Tribunal, we find no illegality in orders of authorities below as well as in impugned order of Tribunal and since assessee/appellant has failed to prove creditworthiness of donors as well as failed to place any evidence in support of her contention in respect of issue which are raised before Tribunal therefore we find no error in order of Tribunal. order of ITAT therefore is confirmed and appeal filed by appellant is dismissed as ITAT has recorded categorical finding of facts. No question in law involved in present appeal. appeal therefore is dismissed. Order Date :- 09.11.2017 SK Srivastava (Ashok Kumar,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.) Sheela Ahuja @ Lata Ahuja v. Commissioner of Income-tax And Another