ITO, Gurgaon V. Dr. Rishi Raj Singh Chauhan, Gurgaon

ITA 1166/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7014 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: PUJA ANAND
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES : 'F' : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI B.K. HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1166/DEL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. DR. RISHI RAJ SINGH CHAUH AN, WARD 1, GURGAON. 1095, SECTOR 17-B, GURGAON. (PAN : ADVPC 7633F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PUJA ANAND, ADVOCATE ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), PANCHKULA DATED 11.01.2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06 WHEREBY THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.69,40,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE PARTICULARS OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY HIM IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME AND EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE SPECIFICALLY BEEN ASKED FOR AND IT WAS ONLY DUE TO AIR INFORMATION THAT THE DEPARTMENT COULD CATCH HOLD OF THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS. 2 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS BENCH HAS DIRECTED TWICE TO BOTH THE PARTIES, I.E., LD. D.R. AND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT O F DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK BUT NEITHER THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN ABLE TO FI LE THE SAME NOR THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL IS IN A POSITION TO PROCURE IT A ND FILE BEFORE THE BENCH. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL FAIRNESS AN D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THIS REGARD SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED BACK ON THE FILE OF ASSESSING OF FICER FOR RECONSIDERING THE ISSUE AFRESH AND TO THIS PLEA OF LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE, THE LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJECT AND RATHER BOTH OF THE REPRESENTATIVES O F THE PARTIES JOINTLY REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW WITH REGARD TO THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.69,40,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH AFT ER OBTAINING NECESSARY DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE BANK TRANSACTIONS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AN ACCOUNT WITH A PARTICULAR BANK WHERE HE HAS DEPOSITED RS.69,40,000/- AS ON 30 .03.2005. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED THIS AMOUNT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED HIM TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT AND PRODUCE THE BANK PASSBOOK GIVING DETAILS OF EACH DEBIT AND CRED IT ENTRIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE WH Y THE DEPOSIT OF 3 RS.69,40,000/- MAY NOT BE ADDED AS INCOME FROM UNDI SCLOSED SOURCES. AS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TREATED THE DEPOSIT OF RS.69,40,000/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT WH ILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS STATED TO HAVE PERUSED THE BANK STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE IN RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT CREDI T BANK, JHARSA WHICH SHOWS RECEIPT OF RS.70,00,000/- BY CHEQUE FROM GURG AON COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, GURGAON, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A HO NORARY DIRECTOR. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE LAND DEAL WAS CONDUCTED AND THE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE ON BEHALF OF THE COLLEGE AND HE WAS ALSO ON THE MEDICAL PANEL OF THE SAID COLLEGE. SO THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THIS DOCUMENT TO DELETE THE IMPUG NED ADDITION, WHEREAS SUCH BANK STATEMENT WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSE E DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT CALLED FOR ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. S INCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS NOT ONLY BEEN FILED BEFORE THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED TO ALLOW RELIEF TO THE ASSESSE E, THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46-A OF THE I.T. RULES. AS SUCH, CONSIDERING T HE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS JOI NT REQUEST OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND IT JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES 4 BELOW WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF AN AMO UNT OF RS.69,40,000/- AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE GETS ACCEPTED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HE ARING ON 26 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (B.K. HALDAR) (U.B.S. BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OR ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. D.R., INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BY ORDER 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR