SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of six income -tax appeals bearing ITA Nos. 178, 179, 246, 249, 247 and 248 of 2007 which are Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in six appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 644 to 649/Asr/2004, pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1996 -97 to 2001 -02, whereby the appeals filed by the assessee have been dismissed. referred to as 'the Act') in the case of Shri Sajiv Vohra, individual were issued for the asst. yrs. 1997 -98 to 2000 -01 for the reason that various investments made by him did not stand reflected in the original returns filed by him in his individual capacity. He was required to explain the investment made by him in acquisition of plot and purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras, etc. He was also asked to explain the source of deposits made by him in various bank accounts with "1. 31.3.1992 Rs. 77,000 2. 31.3.1993 Rs. 1,00,000 3. 31.3.1994 Rs. 1,00,000 4. 31.3.1995 Rs. 75,000"
(2.) REASONS to believe that income had escaped assessment. In these reasons, it was stated that the assessee had made investments in KVPs, etc., in his own name and in the names of his family members and that during reassessment proceedings in the status of individual, Shri Sajiv Vohra had stated that all investments stood in the hands of his HUF. made, observing that in case Shri Vohra was able to prove the assessment (sic -investments), being in the hands of the HUF, the additions in the status of individual would be protective else they would be treated as substantive. These assessments were not challenged and they attained finality. business was the individual business of Shri Vohra. However, income was assessed in the hands of the HUF, on a protective basis since the return had been filed in the status of HUF.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide order dt. 22nd the hands of HUF was deleted. In the individual cases, the assessee stated that the investments stood explained in the hands of the HUF. Since the AO was of the view that investments have been made by individual and were liable to be considered in his case on substantive basis, he, therefore, made the additions in the hands of individual on substantive basis subject to rider that since assessments in the case of HUF were still pending and in case the assessee is able to explain the source of investments in the hands of HUF, the additions in the hands of individual would be protective, else they would be treated as substantive. These additions were never challenged by the assessee and achieved finality. As such, they became substantive additions. In the HUF assessment, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings that the assessee never had an HUF. The protective assessments in HUF status were deleted on the premises that the same income could not be assessed twice over, in the hands of the individual as well as the HUF. Against the aforesaid order passed by the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeals which have been dismissed by the "......we find that the findings recorded by the CIT(A) in this regard are categorical and Shri Vohra has not been able to controvert the same to any degree. The learned counsel has first off, contended that for the asst. yr. 1996 -97, no substantive assessment has been made. But, this is not so. As discussed hereinabove, the protective individual assessments have undisputedly attained finality, as not having been challenged. The status of HUF has not been proved. No positive evidence whatsoever has been brought to an otherwise effect. Rather, all the indication is, as observed by both the authorities below, to the contrary. To begin with, the HUF returns were filed belatedly, only on receipt of notice under s. 148 in the status of individual. The deposits in question were made in the hands of the individuals and not with the HUF. All the bank accounts were in the names of the individuals, rather than in that of the HUF, the source of these funds is also not proved to be any HUF. The bank declarations were also signed as sole proprietor and not as Karta of an HUF. The column in these declaration forms apropos the capacity as HUF has to be made pointed mention of, been left blank, showing the intention and fact situation at the relevant time. No material of the existence of any corpus of HUF funds was brought, either before both the AO and CIT(A) or before us. The KVPs or FDRs were not declared in the individual status. Once notices under s. 148 were issued in the individual status, the only way out for legalizing such investments was to declare them in the status of HUF. It has been so done. However, this machination is amply transparent from all the aforesaid circumstantial evidence to the contrary. It has thus, correctly been deduced that it was the s. 148 notice issued in the individual capacity which triggered the filing of the sham HUF returns. 7.1 Then, the entire business was found to be carried on by Shri Vohra in his individual capacity. This chemist business was shown in the individual status returns. There was only one licence, which was in the name of M/s Vohra Medical Store. Shri Vohra was not found to have been running this business in the name of the HUF. It does not stand proved otherwise......... 8.12 We, however, are not impressed by the stand taken by the assessee. It remains a fact that for the asst. yrs. 1992 - 93 to 1995 -96, i.e. for the assessment years immediately preceding present one, substantial amounts of money were shown in the assessee's capital account, to have been earned as 'Other income'. The details of this 'Other income', never saw the light of day undisputedly, no return of income for any of these years was filed. The sources of this income thus remained shrouded in mystery. In the individual assessments, on the other hand substantial additions were made, which were allowed to remain, having not been appealed against. Also, huge gifts were received from Shri Vohra's parents, whereas loans were advanced to them free of interest. All this is gathered for the APB itself, constituting self - incrimination documentary evidence produced by the assessee itself, little realizing that these very documents would comprise evidence capable of working and being used against, rather than in favour of, the assessee. 8.13 To wit, the modus operandi of the assessee is self -explanatory res ipsa loquitor. It is merely by design that the status of HUF has been tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to be engineered by Shri Vohra, to suit his nefarious purpose of evading the tax which was the rightful and legitimate due of the Revenue. Such design must (sic) be allowed to succeed." ;