Shri Ram Kumar Atri, Delhi V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 1333/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52497 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1333/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1333/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2006-07 SHRI RAM KUMAR ATRI, 472, NAV SANSAD VIHAR, PLOT NO. 4, SECTOR-22, DWARKA, NEW DELHI (PAN/GIR NO. : ABUPA7999K) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GURGAON (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. SANDEEP SAPRA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : S MT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 17.8.2 009 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 1,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS. 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN NEW LOAN WHICH HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE NAME OF M ANJU ATRI FOR ` 1.75 LACS. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE LOAN EXCEPT SUBMITTING AN AFFIDAVIT STATED TO BE BUSINESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN FOUR PERSONS SANJAY SHANKAR JADHAV , KRISHAN ITA NO. 1333/DEL/2010 2 KUMAR, MANJU AND ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT FIND THE SAID AGREEMENT CREDIBLE. HE NOTED THAT THE SAME WAS NOT REGISTERED; IT IS NOT NOTARIZED; ALL MEMBERS HAVE NOT SIGNED THE AGRE EMENT. INSPECTOR OF THE IT DEPARTMENT ON ENQUIRY FOUND THAT NO ACTIVI TY WAS CONDUCTED ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ASS ESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THIS LOAN OF ` 1,75 ,000/- INTRODUCED IN THE NAME OF MANJU ATRI. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED CONVINCINGLY TH E SOURCE OF LOAN OF ` 1.75 LACS. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT TH E UNSECURED LOAN OF ` 1.75 LACS WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS WIFE SMT. MANJU ATRI. THE ONUS OF PROVING THE UNSECURED LOAN IS ON THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GRANTED, HE WILL BE ABLE TO PROVE THE SAME TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PRODUCING ALL RELEVANT DETAILS AND PARTICULARS, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED, IF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVE N ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HIS CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE STANDS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ON ESTIMATE BASIS. ITA NO. 1333/DEL/2010 3 8. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WITHDRAWAL OF ` 110,000/- FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. ASSESSING OFF ICER FOUND THAT THE SAME IS NOT ADEQUATE. HE OPINED THAT ` 1 LACS SH OULD BE ADDED ON ESTIMATE BASIS IN THIS REGARD. 9. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED ` 50,000/- AND DELETED THE BALA NCE. 10. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY BA SIS AND ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND THE SAME IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 12. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 50,000/- TREATING THE EXPENSES AS NON-VERIFIABLE AND UNDERST ATED ON ESTIMATE BASIS. 13. ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE RECEIPTS AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE NOT VERIFIABLE SO THE UNDERSTATED RECEIPTS AND INFLATED EXPENSES CANN OT BE RULED OUT. HENCE, HE ESTIMATED THE TRADING ADDITION OF ` 1 LAC AND ADDED THE SAME. 14. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 50,000/- AND DELETED THE REST. 15. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. ITA NO. 1333/DEL/2010 4 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION IS ALSO BASED ON GUESS WORK AND NO COGENT BASIS FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT ADDITIONS MADE ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. UN DER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/8/2011 UPO N CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [ [[ [C.L. SETHI C.L. SETHI C.L. SETHI C.L. SETHI] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 08/8/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES