Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.3 Coming to the facts of the case, we are unable to persuade ourselves to be satisfied with the credits under the reference as proved, or that the AO, in rejecting the assessee's explanation qua the nature and source thereof, was not acting reasonably, and ought to have been satisfied therewith. To begin with, no confirmation has been produced from the first two creditors, stated to have advanced Rs. 1 lakh. It is difficult, therefore, to say that the identity stands proved qua these two credits. It is definitely so for the balance six, affidavits from whom stand furnished, besides five of them being produced before the AO. However, their capacity is wholly unproved; rather, disproved in-as-much as they have admitted their income/s, which is meager by any standards. Much less than thinking in terms of buying a residential plot of land (costing Rs. 6 lacs), such a person would be hard put to meet his day-to-day needs, i.e., the maintenance cost of self and family. That is, being engaged wholly in providing for sustenance; the cost of living itself being ever increasing, much less upgrade it, i.e., improve his standard of living, the question of thinking of investment, much less make so, does not arise. There is no basis for the 'accumulation of personal savings', to which the amount paid is attributed, with we finding that their income (Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 1 lakh per annum) would barely suffice for their survival. Why, there is nothing on record to show that they own assets, apart from some agricultural land, where the stated source of income is agricultural. Purchase of a plot - the stated purpose of the credit, would in fact require capital far in excess, further severely impinging on the genuineness of the transaction. Further still, why did they pay in cash, as any prudent person would, for record purposes, prefer to pay through the banking channel. The receipts are not stamped, so that that issued is not an evidence of debt Maninder Singh Cheema v. Asstt. CIT owed. That apart, the deposit is without any accompanying agreement, which, even if not registered, is a normal incidence of the trade, specifying the terms and conditions on which the deposit stands given. Nobody would give money without arriving at an agreement, reduced in the writing to eschew any differences arising as well as for record and, thus, documenting the various aspects of the transaction, viz. the identity of the plot, i.e. , its size & address, specifying the name as well as the status of the residential area, i.e., approved or unapproved or pending approval; the validity period of the deposit (booking); the period in which the allotment is to be made; its purchase price; how is the same to be paid, etc. - in short, all such information as anyone entering the transaction would need to crystallize before entering the same, binding himself therewith. The amount is then stated to be paid back. Surprisingly, this is again without any documentary evidence. It is not to these persons, but to another. There is no contemporaneous material to show that Sh. Raj Sher Singh (RSS) is the person through whom the 'booking transaction' was made. Why, he is also not shown to be, as claimed before us, a broker, soliciting customers for a fee (commission). Why, one of the depositors, Shri Sanjay Mehta, states the assessee to be his friend (PB pgs. 46-47). Why would he, then, approach another person, a solicitor, and why, again, would the assessee not refund him the booking amount on cancellation, rather than to another. The reason for the cancellation of the 'booking' is stated to be the litigation in which the colonizer was embroiled. Does that imply that the assessee did not disclose his friend about the ongoing litigation and its status, for him to have invested/caused investment, and canceling soon thereafter, citing litigation as the reason? Rather, any prudent businessman would not only repay the depositors directly, but also obtain the signature of the broker, where so, as a confirming party, as well as a declaration to the effect that the same (repayment) shall operate to terminate all the rights of the depositor in the plot booked. Then, again, expectedly, there is nothing Maninder Singh Cheema v. Asstt. CIT to show that RSS paid the creditors. No doubt, the creditors have so stated, but then what value their statement when neither the payment by them is substantiated nor have they been shown to have capacity for the same, so that the transaction is wholly unevidenced. That is, the same is only a self-serving statement/s, as is their confirmation/s of the deposit/s (refer: CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra); Sumati Dayal v. CIT (supra)). How could, then, it be said that payment to them by RSS stands evidenced? Per contra, the same is completely unproved. Rather, RSS, having received the amount advanced, assuming so, under trust, would take all possible steps to evidence the repayment to the depositors. In fact, RSS himself is conspicuous by his absence. What is his occupation? How does he know these persons residing in the different districts of the state? How many customers, that is, besides these eight, credit from whom is not established, has he solicited? Did he accept repayment on behalf of others, rather than facilitating repayment to them? Is this the normal practice? In fact, the amount having been repaid soon after, why did he misguide the customers into booking plots on a site embroiled in litigation, which is stated as a reason for repayment? This becomes particularly relevant as it is not shown, or even stated, that the other credits, that is, by way of earnest money, stood similarly repaid, or the bulk of it, inasmuch as the normal tendency of the depositor would be to stay clear of any disputed property. How could then it be said that the transaction/s and, resultantly, the deposits represent a genuine transaction/s? The ld. CIT(A) has considered none of these aspects arising in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is, it may be appreciated, the genuineness of a transaction that is determinative and, in any case, guides the determination of the matter. The identity and capacity, though listed as separate parameters, that is, apart from genuineness, are, it may be appreciated, elements that go to establish the genuineness of the transaction or contribute thereto. Could, for example, where Maninder Singh Cheema v. Asstt. CIT the identity and/or the capacity of the creditor is not proved, be considered as genuine?