Attam Parkash Kaushik, V. JCIT Special Range 18,

ITA 1087/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 108720114 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENU JAUHRI
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH A AA A : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER IT ITIT IT(SS) A. (SS) A. (SS) A. (SS) A. NO NO NO NO. .. .85/DEL/2001 85/DEL/2001 85/DEL/2001 85/DEL/2001 BLOCK PERIOD BLOCK PERIOD BLOCK PERIOD BLOCK PERIOD : : : : AY 1988 AY 1988 AY 1988 AY 1988- -- -89 UPTO 30.09.1997 89 UPTO 30.09.1997 89 UPTO 30.09.1997 89 UPTO 30.09.1997 SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, 45, B 45, B 45, B 45, B.D. ESTATE, .D. ESTATE, .D. ESTATE, .D. ESTATE, TIMARPUR, TIMARPUR, TIMARPUR, TIMARPUR, DELHI. DELHI. DELHI. DELHI. PAN : ACRPK1552E. PAN : ACRPK1552E. PAN : ACRPK1552E. PAN : ACRPK1552E. VS. VS. VS. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE- -- -18, 18, 18, 18, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT ITIT ITA NO.1087/DEL/2007 A NO.1087/DEL/2007 A NO.1087/DEL/2007 A NO.1087/DEL/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998- -- -99 9999 99 SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, 683, KATRA HARDAYAL, 683, KATRA HARDAYAL, 683, KATRA HARDAYAL, 683, KATRA HARDAYAL, CHANDNI CHOWK, CHANDNI CHOWK, CHANDNI CHOWK, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. PAN : ACRPK1552E. PAN : ACRPK1552E. PAN : ACRPK1552E. PAN : ACRPK1552E. VS. VS. VS. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE- -- -18, 18, 18, 18, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.K. GUPTA, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. RENU JAUHRI, CIT-DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D. D.D. D.AGRAWAL, AGRAWAL, AGRAWAL, AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-IX, NEW DELHI DATED 23.02.2001 AND L EARNED CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI DATED 09.02.2007. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS STATED BY T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MAJOR ADDITION IN BOT H THE APPEALS IS THE ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. HE SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH OF ` 11,72,830/- FOUND FROM THE IT(SS)-85/D/2001 & ITA-1087/D/2007 2 ASSESSEES RESIDENCE, ` 10,00,000/- WAS OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF TREES IN HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE BAWAL. THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AS WELL A S IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR AY 1998-99. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE SUM OF ` 10,00,000/- IS OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE TREES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHO UT ALLOWING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY, REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM ON TH E SIMPLE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS C LAIM WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW ANY OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS O BTAINED THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE TREES FROM T HE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE SAME WOULD BE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND, THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WILL PRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENCES T O SUBSTANTIATE THE INCOME FROM SALE OF TREES. HE FURTHER STATED THAT WIT H REGARD TO REMAINING CASH FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE AND ALSO FOUND FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES, AGAIN, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN REJECTED SUMMARILY WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY ADEQUATE OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITT ED THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS FOR AY 1998- 99 MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJU DICATION. 3. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, OBJECTED TO THE R EQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL AND STATED THAT THE MATTER IS OLD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ONCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN, IT WAS HIS DUTY TO FURNISH THE EXPLAN ATION ALONGWITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE. SHE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE SUSTAINED. IT(SS)-85/D/2001 & ITA-1087/D/2007 3 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE AGREE WITH THE LEARNED DR THAT THE MATTER IS QUITE OLD BUT, AT THE SAME TIME , FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED TH E EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO CASH FOUND FROM HIS RESIDE NCE AMOUNTING TO ` 11,72,830/-. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SUM OF ` 10,00,000/- WAS OUT OF THE SALE OF TREES IN VILLAGE BAWAL. REGARDING THE RE MAINING SUM OF ` 1,72,830/-, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IT WAS THE ACCUMUL ATION OF SAVINGS OF CHILDREN AND THE ASSESSEES WIFE FROM THE CASH GIFT R ECEIVED FROM PARENTS, RELATIVES ON VARIOUS FUNCTIONS, OCCASIONS AND FE STIVALS. AT PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BRO UGHT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLA IM REGARDING SALE OF TREES. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO SAVINGS OF WI FE AND CHILDREN, AGAIN, THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS REJECTED ON THE GRO UND THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. BUT, WE FIND N O MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVER ASKED T HE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED HIM ANY OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. THE MAJOR ADDITIONS IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ONLY WITH REGARD TO CASH IN HAND FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE AS WELL AS BUSINESS PREMISES AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION, IN OUR OPINION, EVEN THOUGH THE MATTER IS OLD, IT WO ULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND SET ASIDE T HE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR BLOCK PERIOD AS WELL AS FOR AY 1 998-99 AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DI RECT HIM TO ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. W E ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ALL THE EXPLANATIONS/EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OF FICER WILL IT(SS)-85/D/2001 & ITA-1087/D/2007 4 THEREAFTER FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH FOR THE BLOCK PER IOD AS WELL AS FOR AY 1998-99 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 17.01.2014 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, SHRI ATAM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, 683, KATRA HARDAYAL, 683, KATRA HARDAYAL, 683, KATRA HARDAYAL, 683, KATRA HARDAYAL, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. 2. RESPONDENT : JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE- -- -18, NEW DELHI. 18, NEW DELHI. 18, NEW DELHI. 18, NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR