Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THE assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 30 -3 -2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in IT(SS)A No. 24/Asr/2004 of the assessee for the block period 1 -4 -1989 to 28 -1 -2000, while raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in invoking the deeming provisions under the Income Tax Act having been influenced by the proceedings under the FERA, 1973 notwithstanding the matter is premature ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in concurring with the appellate authority whereby under Section 69A the transactions of similar nature needs to be given an impartial treatment ? (iii) Whether on presuming the income under the Act the alternate pleadings for the source and disclosure needs to be overlooked resulting into the denial of justice ?
(2.) IN this appeal, the issue is with regard to the addition of Rs. 7.5 lacs made by the assessing officer and sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). The said amount was recovered from the possession of the appellant on 30 -5 -1996 when he was apprehended by the Punjab Police at Shamboo, District Patiala. The matter was informed to the Income Tax department. The statement of the appellant was recorded on 31 -5 -1996 and on 1 -6 -1996 by the Enforcement Directorate authorities where he had stated that on instructions of his brother, namely, Vijay Kumar, living in Abu Dhabi, he had received a sum of Rs. 14.50 lacs from one Ganga Ram which includes the seized amount of Rs. 7.5 lacs and further the same was to be distributed to various persons in Punjab as per the instructions of his brother. Subsequently, during the course of block assessment, the statement of the assessee was recorded where he had retracted from his earlier statement and stated that the money recovered from him was the sale proceeds of 13 Kanal and 8 Marlas of land agreed to be sold by his brother Kewal Krishan by entering into an agreement of sale to one Budh Singh son of Naranjan Singh for a consideration of Rs. 12,25,000 out of which a sum of Rs. 6,10,000 was received by him in cash. It was stated that an amount of Rs. 1,40,000 was the savings of his brother Kewal Krishan and his brother had given the total amount of Rs. 7.5 lacs to him for purchasing a plot at Delhi. The stand taken by the assessee was not accepted by the assessing officer as no sufficient material /evidence was led to establish the said plea and, thus, addition of Rs. 7.5 lacs was made. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed while observing as under: I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the arguments from both sides and the relevant material and assessment record. I am not inclined to agree with the assessee's plea for the following reasons: (1) The statement retracted later seems true because some of the people named therein confirmed having received money from Sh. Jaspal. (2) Sh. Kewal Krishan who had never visited Delhi would not give Rs. 7.5 lacs in cash to his brother for buying a plot even without confirming it's location. (3) Once Sh. Madan Lal supposed to be aware of the entire deal and hence very close to Sh. Kewal Krishan, is untraceable. Even Sh. Kewal Krishan neither knows his phone number nor any other particulars of this person supposedly so very close. (4) In all his answers to the questions raised by the assessing officer Sh. Kewal Krishan is harping on the same name Sh. Madan Lal alias Kala. He should have been produced before the assessing officer to authenticate certain things. Had the assessee been giving a genuine explanation, he should have definitely brought in 'Kala' for recording his statement. Since the entire defence revolves around 'Kala', his production before the assessing officer was absolutely essential. (5) It is hard to believe that Rs. 7.5 lacs was being carried to be handed over to the seller of plot in Delhi whose name even is not known to either the purchaser or the people deputed by him to strike the deal. (6) Rs. 1,40,000 out of past savings, lying at home of a person having an income of about Rs. 2,000 per month while he also has a savings bank account where he has been depositing meager amounts at times, cannot be believed. (7) There is no documentary proof of any agricultural income accruing to him. I am of the view that assessing officer was correct in holding that statement given later was not correct. Regarding ground No. 3, it is not correct to say that the source of the amount was proved by sufficient evidence. The appellant may have sold the land, may have got advance, the deal could have been genuine but there is no evidence direct or circumstantial to link this amount with the amount carried by the assessee especially in view of so many unconvincing replies to the questions asked by the assessing officer while recording the statements which I have already discussed above. The assessment has been completed in time as per Section 158BE of the Income Tax Act, therefore, ground No. 4 is dismissed. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal which has also been dismissed.
(3.) WE have heard the counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order.;