Smt. Pritiben Prafulbhai Shah, Surat v. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1,, Surat

ITA 2797/AHD/2006 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 279720514 RSA 2006
Assessee PAN AFXPS3411F
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2797/AHD/2006
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Pritiben Prafulbhai Shah, Surat
Respondent The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1,, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 21-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 12-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 12-05-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 13-12-2006
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI G. D. AGARWAL VP AND BHAVNESH SAINI JM) ITA NO.2797 AND 2798/AHD/2006 A. Y.: 2002-03 AND 2003-04 SMT. PRITIBEN PRAFULBHAI SHAH PROP. PRITI CORPORATION 8/1662 DARUMOHALLO GOPIPURA SURAT PA NO. AFXPS 3411F VS THE A. C. I. T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MAJURAGATE SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI TUSHAR P. HEMANI AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI B.S. SANDHU DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON CONSOLIDATED OR DER SINCE BOTH WERE HEARD TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND C ONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED BY 2 (T WO) DAYS. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE REASONS FOR DELAY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER APPLICATION DATED 29-01-2007 AND 10-11-2009 THE NO MINAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS IS CONDONED. ITA NO.2797/AHD/2006: AY 2002-03 3. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)- II AHMEDABAD DATED 10-10-2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. LEARNED A.C. OF I.T. HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS TO TREAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.20 00 000/- AMOUNT INVESTED B Y ITA NO.2797 AND 2798/AHD/2006 SMT. PRITIBENI P. SHAH VS ACIT 2 APPELLANTS BROTHER IN LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES AS UNACCOUNTED AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT . LEARNED CIT (APPLS) IGNORING EXPLANATION ALONG WITH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AC TION OF THE A.O. 2. AMOUNT OF RS.20 00 000/- EXPLAINED TO BE INVESTE D BY THE BROTHER OF APPELLANT CORROBORATED WITH HIS HO LDING OF LAND IN FORM NO.7/12. ARBITRATORS AWARD AND APPEARING IN CAPITAL A/C OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE HELD AS INCOME UNDISCLOSED OF THE APPELLANT. LEARNED CIT (APPLS) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF A. O . IN TREATING THIS AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS FOLLOWED HIS OWN ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF CHEQUES DIS COUNTING AND ALSO EARNED INTEREST ON LOANS GIVEN OUT. IN THE COURSE O F SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT SOME PAPERS WERE FOUND WHICH REVEALED EXISTENCE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSES SEES HUSBAND MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.2 76 68 805/- FOR CASH LOANS GIVEN TO DIFFERENT PERSONS AGAINST SECURITY OF CHEQUES. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS A LSO DISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN LIC POLICIES WHICH ARE MENTIONED ON P AGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. MANY OF THOSE POLICIES ARE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND IN WHICH INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSES SEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.20 LACS AND THERE WAS NO DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF T HIS AMOUNT. UNDISPUTEDLY THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING FINANC IAL YEAR 2001-02 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. WHEN ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE AVAILABILITY OF SUCH HUGE AMOUNT TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM H ER BROTHER AS A RESULT OF SETTLEMENT IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INC OME AND LAND OWNED BY HER FATHER. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AFT ER THE DEATH OF HER FATHER SHE HAD NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVED ANY MONEY TOWA RDS THE SHARE OF HER INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AND A SETTLEMENT WAS ARRIVE D AT BETWEEN HER AND ITA NO.2797 AND 2798/AHD/2006 SMT. PRITIBENI P. SHAH VS ACIT 3 HER BROTHER SHRI GUNVANTRAI V. SHAH (IN SHORT G. V. SHAH) ACCORDING TO WHICH HIS INVESTMENT OF RS.20 LACS IN LIC POLICIES WAS TREATED AS MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS HER SHARE OF AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME. STATEMENT OF SHRI GUNVANTRAI V. SHAH WAS RECORDED A ND ARBITRATORS AWARD WAS ALSO PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CL AIM. HOWEVER THE AO HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE R EASONS GIVEN IN PARA 5.4 5.5 5.6 AND 5.7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO OBSERVED IN THIS PARAS THAT LIC POLICIES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED PRIOR T O THE AWARD. IT WOULD SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HER BROTHER. APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR AND DECLARATION OF AWARD IS THEREFORE MADE UP STORY AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCES OF PURCHASE OF LIC POLICIES. BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE AS SESSEE HAS ALSO NOT SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. SHRI G. V. SHAH HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS E ARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4 LACS TO RS.5 LACS PER YEAR. SHRI G. V. SHAH HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGA RDING AVAILABILITY OF THE MONEY ON THE DATE ON WHICH INVESTMENTS WERE MAD E IN PURCHASE OF LIC POLICIES. NO SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN LIC POLIC IES OR CASH OF RS.4 51 000/- IS PROVED. EVEN THE NAME OF THE LIC A GENT THROUGH WHOM LIC POLICIES WERE PURCHASED IN SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT I S NOT KNOWN TO THEM. THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.20 00 00 0/- AND RS.4 51 000/- IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER AP PEAL. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME PLE AS AS MADE BEFORE AO AND RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SMT. P. K. NOOR JAHAN 237 ITR 570. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: ITA NO.2797 AND 2798/AHD/2006 SMT. PRITIBENI P. SHAH VS ACIT 4 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATER IAL ON THE RECORD IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT MOST O F THE INVESTMENT IS MADE IN A VERY SHORT SPAN OF TIME I.E . MAY 2001 TO DECEMBER 2001 AND THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT HER BROTHER ON HER REQUEST WAS MAKING INVESTMENTS IN TH OSE POLICIES. OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD MEAN THAT SUCH BIG SU M WAS AVAILABLE IN CASH TO THE APPELLANTS BROTHER WHICH GOT INVESTMENT OVER A PERIOD OF 5 6 MONTHS. DID HE KE EP HER SHARE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ACCUMULATED ALL THESE YEARS AND INVESTED ALL RATHER SUDDENLY. FURTHER PARA 5.6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO NOTES THAT THE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIAL AND OF COURSE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS NOT SHOWN IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS BY HER OR BY HE R BROTHER SHRI GUNBANTRAI V. SHAH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS R IGHT IN MENTIONING THAT WHEN THE INVESTMENT IS MADE BY HER BROTHER ON HER REQUEST IN THE POLICIES TAKEN IN HER NAME AN D HER HUSBANDS NAME WHAT WAS THE DISPUTE FOR WHICH ARBIT RATOR WAS LATER ON APPOINTED. HE IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF MONEY FROM HER SHARE OF AGRICULTURA L INCOME IS NOT PROVED. 8. COMING TO THE CASE LAW THE SUPREME COURT DECISI ON IN CIT V. SMT. P. K. NOORJAHAN WAS RENDERED ON A PECUL IAR FACTS OF THAT CASE WHEREIN THE APPELLANT WAS A MUSLIM LAD Y WHO WAS ABOUT 20 YEARS OF AGE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELE VANT TO A. Y. 1968-69 WHEN THE INVESTMENT IN LAND WAS MADE FOR RS.34 628 IN NOVEMBER 1967 AND RS.25 902 IN NOVEMB ER 1968. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE L ADY COULD NOT EXPLAIN REASONABLY THE SOURCES OF MONEY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT UNDER COMPULSION TO TAX I T U/S. 69 AS INVESTMENT FROM INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. AS AGAINST THIS FACTUAL MATRIX OF THAT DECISION THE PO SITION IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND HAVE BEE N DOING BUSINESS ON A FAIRLY LARGE SCALE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY HER HUSBAND IN A SUM OF MORE THA N RS.2.76 CRORES. 9. OTHER FIVE CASES WHOSE GIST IS ATTACHED ALSO DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPELLANTS CASE BECAUSE IN THE ULTIMAT E ANALYSIS IT IS A QUESTION OF WEIGHING THE RELIABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED AFTER TAKING ALL THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANC ES INTO ACCOUNT. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND THERE ARE TWO DECISION OF T HE SUPREME COURT WHICH GO TO SUPPORT THE DEPARTMENTS CASE. IN CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE 72 ITR 807 THE APPELLANT H AD TRIED ITA NO.2797 AND 2798/AHD/2006 SMT. PRITIBENI P. SHAH VS ACIT 5 TO SUPPORT HIS CASE ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN RECITAL S IN SOME TRUST DEED ETC. THOUGH AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT TH E TOTALITY OF OUTCOME DID NOT APPEAR TO BE PROBABLE. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT WAS NOT BOUND T O ACCEPT SUCH SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS AND THEY CAN FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION. 11. IN SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) FOR EXPLAINING AVAILABILITY OF MONEY WITH HER SHE CLAIM ED THAT SHE HAD WON MANY JACKPOTS IN THE HORSE-RACE AND IN SUPP ORT OF THAT CLAIM PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LIKE CERTI FICATES FOR WINNING THE JACKPOT AND RECEIPTS OF CHEQUES ETC. TH E SUPREME COURT HELD THAT LOOKING TO THE PROBABILITY OF HUMAN CONDUCT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM. T HIS WAS SO HELD IN SPITE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SO-CALLED FOOLPRO OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF JACKPOT WI NNINGS. 12. AS ALREADY MENTIONED THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY T HE APPELLANT HAS MANY HOLES AND DISCREPANCIES AND THE APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND ARE REALLY INVOLVED IN FA IRLY BIG BUSINESS OF CHEQUES DISCOUNTING ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPELLANTS CLAIM OF INVESTMENT OF RS.20 LAKHS IN A COURSE OF FEW MONTHS BY HER BRO THER ON HER REQUEST AS HER SHARE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND GOD ALONE KNOWS PERTAINING TO HOW MANY YEARS? APPELLANTS THI S GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 13. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND IS ABOUT INITIATION OF PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THIS IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 14. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THA T INVESTMENTS IN LIC POLICIES WERE MADE FROM 25-05-2001 TO 24-12-2001 FA LLING IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB -18 WHICH IS STATEMENT OF SHRI G. V. SHAH BROTHER OF THE ASSESS EE IN WHICH HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MANAGER IN CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND HE HAS EXPLAINED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS HIS SISTER AND THERE IS ANOTHER SISTER. AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER THEY HAVE INHERITED THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY AND DISPUTE ARO SE ABOUT AGRICULTURAL ITA NO.2797 AND 2798/AHD/2006 SMT. PRITIBENI P. SHAH VS ACIT 6 INCOME WHICH WAS SETTLED THROUGH ARBITRATOR AND LIC POLICIES OF RS.20 00 000/- HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY HIM TO THE ASSESS EE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS EXP LAINED THE SOURCE OF MAKING INVESTMENTS IN LIC POLICIES OUT OF AGRICULTU RAL INCOME. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN COMPLETE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS AND CASH RECEIVED ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HE H AS REFERRED TO PB 39 AND PB -41 WHICH ARE AGREEMENT FOR APPOINTMENT O F ARBITRATOR ON 15-02-2003 AND AWARD DATED 15-03-2003. HE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT SINCE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER BROTHER EXPIRED IN S EPTEMBER 1993 THEREFORE ASSESSEE BECAME ENTITLED TO THE SHARE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS THEIR HUF PROPERTY. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE HOWEVER ADMITTED THAT HUF WAS NOT FILING ANY RETURN OF INCO ME SHOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT ARBI TRATION AGREEMENT WAS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HER BROTHER ONLY AND A NOTHER SISTER WAS NOT PARTY TO IT. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HER ONUS TO PROVE INVESTMENTS IN LIC POLICIES AND CASH GIVEN TO HER IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IS EXPLAI NED. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT ASSESSEE NEED NOT PROVE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE A ND RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PRAGATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 278 ITR 170 AND IN THE CASE OF MURLIDHAR LAHORIMAL VS CIT 280 ITR 512. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND IN HIS S TATEMENT ADMITTED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN LIC POLICIES AND CASH GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ARBITRATION AWARD THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE DISC HARGED HER ONUS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BRO THER OF THE ASSESSEE KEPT CASH WITH HIM FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND KEEPING CA SH AT THE MOST WOULD HAVE SOME SUSPICION BUT THERE IS NO BAR UNDER THE L AW TO KEEP CASH OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-4 WHI CH IS ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2004-05 IN WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR RATE PURPOSE HAVE BEEN COMP UTED BY THE AO AT ITA NO.2797 AND 2798/AHD/2006 SMT. PRITIBENI P. SHAH VS ACIT 7 RS.80 290/-. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE A LSO REFERRED TO PB-44 TO PB-49 WHICH IS RECORD OF LANDHOLDING TO SHOW THA T THE ASSESSEE IS CO- OWNER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ENTITLED TO SHAR E IN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALTERNATIVELY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THER EFORE REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME MAY BE MADE AND RES ULTANT BENEFIT MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE OR DERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REFERRED TO THE FINDINGS OF T HE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE LIC POLICIES WERE PURCHASED IN THE YEA R UNDER APPEAL AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT INVESTMENTS IN LIC POLICIE S WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER NAME AND IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND . HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-36 WHICH IS REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH TH E ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL HAS NOT SHOWN ANY AGRI CULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT NO RETURN OF HUF HAS BEEN FILED DECLARING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. BROTH ER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE STATEMENT O F THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RELIABLE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENT IN LIC POLICIES HAVE BEEN MADE FROM MAY 2001 TO DECEMBER 2001 BUT THE REFERENCE TO THE ARBITRATOR WAS MADE O N 25-02-2003 WHICH IS AFTERTHOUGHT AND CLEARLY FALSE BECAUSE ONCE LIC POLICIES ARE PURCHASED IN EARLIER YEAR IT WOULD NOT SHOW ANY DISPUTE BETW EEN THE ASSESSEE AND HER BROTHER. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER BROTHER HAVE FAILED TO GIVE ANY EVIDENCE OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN LIC POLICIES. THEREFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFI ED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT DISCHARGED ONUS TO PROVE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE LIC POLICIES. THEREFORE ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. ITA NO.2797 AND 2798/AHD/2006 SMT. PRITIBENI P. SHAH VS ACIT 8 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSE SSEE MADE INVESTMENTS IN LIC POLICIES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN HER NAME AND IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER BROTHER HAVE NEVER SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE IR RETURN OF INCOME. NO RETURN OF ALLEGED HUF IS FILED TO SHOW ANY AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME. NO EVIDENCE IS ALSO PRODUCED OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF LIC POLICIES ON CASH BETWEEN 25-05-2001 TO 24-12 -2001. ALL THE LIC POLICIES PURCHASED ARE NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSES SEE BUT IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND ALSO. THE NAME OF LIC AGENT IS NOT E XPLAINED THROUGH WHOM LIC POLICIES OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT DURING THE SHORT SPAN OF PERIOD HAVE BEEN PURCHASED. IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI G. V. SHAH BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE HE HAS ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE WITH OTHER SISTER WHO WAS ALSO ONE OF THE ALLEGED JOINT OWNERS IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN HIS STATEMENT HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT ACCORDING TO SE TTLEMENT THROUGH THE AWARD HE HAS GIVEN THE LIC POLICIES OF RS.20 00 00 0/- TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ALONG WITH RS.4 51 000/- IN C ASH IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2003. HE HAS ADMITTED THAT NO AMOUNT IS GIVE N TO THE OTHER SISTER. THE NAME OF THE LIC AGENT THROUGH WHOM HE H AS PURCHASED THE LIC POLICIES IS ALSO NOT KNOWN TO HIM. HE HAS HOWEV ER FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY PROOF OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH AND EARNING OF AG RICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS STATEMENT. PB-39 IS AGREEMENT FOR APPOINTMENT OF AR BITRATOR DATED 15-2-2003 THROUGH WHOM ONE OF THE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS APPOINTED AS ARBITRATOR AND HE HAS GIVEN HIS AWARD ON 15-3-2003 AFTER INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE LIC POLICIES IN THE YEAR 20 01. ACCORDING TO THE AWARD DATED 15-03-2003 THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHARE AGRICULTURAL LAN DHOLDING. ACCORDING TO THE AWARD ALL THE LIC POLICIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE OF RS.20 00 000/- WHICH WERE ALREADY PURCHASED PRIOR T O THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND THE AWARD. THEREFORE IT IS A CLEAR C ASE OF MANIPULATION OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND THE AWARD. WHEN THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ITA NO.2797 AND 2798/AHD/2006 SMT. PRITIBENI P. SHAH VS ACIT 9 ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WHERE WAS THE NEED FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE ARBITRATOR AND EVEN ACCORDING TO THE AWARD THERE WAS NO DISPUTE BECAUSE THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PURCHASING THE LIC POLICIES PRIOR TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE ARBITR ATOR AND DECLARATION OF THE AWARD. AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE THEREFORE JUSTI FIED IN HOLDING THAT THE AWARD IS AFTERTHOUGHT STORY. IT MAY ALSO BE POINTED OUT THAT BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN WORKING AS ASSISTANT MANAGER IN CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. HE HAS ALSO NOT DEPOSITED THE CASH ACCUMULAT ED DURING SEVERAL YEARS IN BANK AS PER HIS STATEMENT. BEING THE OFFIC ER OF THE BANK HE WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT KEEPING OF THE CASH BELONGIN G TO OTHER IS SAFE WHILE DEPOSITING IN THE BANK. THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DO SO. THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DEPOSITING AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN BANK WOULD SHOW HIS UNNATURA L CONDUCT. THEREFORE HIS STATEMENT IS NOT WORTH RELIANCE. NO EVIDENCE OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OR SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN LIC POLICIES HAS BEEN EXPLAINED OR PROVED. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND SHOWING HUGE UNACCOUNTED MONEY WOULD SHOW T HEIR MODUS OPERANDI IN MAKING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. IT MAY AGAIN BE NOTED HERE THAT ONCE LIC POLICIES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED IN THE N AME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND PRIOR TO REFERRING THE DISPUTE TO T HE ARBITRATOR THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE ARBITRATO R. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DURGA PRASAD MORE 82 ITR 540 H ELD THAT THE COURTS AND TRIBUNAL HAVE TO JUDGE THE EVIDENCE BEFO RE THEM BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUMATI DAYAL 214 ITR 801 SIMILARLY HELD THAT THE COURTS AND TRIBUNAL SHOULD CONSIDER THE SURROU NDING CIRCUMSTANCES BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABI LITIES. IF THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IS APPLIED TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IT WOULD LEAD TO IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION THAT RS.20 00 000/- INVESTED IN THE LIC POLICIES WAS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. THE STORY SET UP BY ASSESSEE THAT ITA NO.2797 AND 2798/AHD/2006 SMT. PRITIBENI P. SHAH VS ACIT 10 THIS AMOUNT WAS INVESTED BY THE BROTHER OF THE ASSE SSEE AFTER SETTLEMENT THROUGH ARBITRATION AWARD IS CLEARLY AFTERTHOUGHT A ND AGAINST ALL HUMAN PROBABILITIES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THUS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT IS ALSO UNNATURAL CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER B ROTHER THAT DESPITE THEIR FATHER EXPIRED IN SEPTEMBER 1993 THE ASSESS EE AND HER BROTHER SUDDENLY AWAKE UP AFTER EXPIRY OF AROUND 10 YEARS I N 2003 FOR MAKING REFERENCE FOR ARBITRATION. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSES SEE AND HER BROTHER SPEAK AGAINST THEMSELVES. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS FAI LED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASE OF LIC POLICIES A ND AMOUNT RECEIVED OF RS.4 51 000/-. NO EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ALSO PROVED. THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NO ME RIT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE O F EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. CONSIDERING THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. AS A RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ITA NO.2798/AHD/2006 (AY 2003-04) 10. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AHMEDABAD DATED 10-10-2006 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: 1. LEARNED A. C. OF I.T. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND FACTS TO ADD AN AMOUNT OF RS.4 51 000/- AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM HER BROTHER THROUGH ARBITRATI ON AWARD. LEARNED HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT EXPLANATION OFFERE D BY APPELLANTS BROTHER CERTIFIED ARBITRATION AWARD AN D INCIDENTAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED WERE NOT TRUE AND CORRECT BY BRI NGING CONTRARY EVIDENCES ON RECORD. LEARNED CIT (APPLS) H AS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING ACTION AND ADDITION MADE BY A. O. ITA NO.2797 AND 2798/AHD/2006 SMT. PRITIBENI P. SHAH VS ACIT 11 11. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION GIVEN IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-03 IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE. IT IS UNDISPUTED FAC T THAT THE FACTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE ALSO SAME AS CONSI DERED IN ITA NO.2797/AHD/2006. BY FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONS FOR DECISION WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO. 12. AS A RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21-05-2010 (G. D. AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 21-05-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD