Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1503 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
14-06-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
10-06-2019
Assessment Year
2015-2016
Appeal Filed On
30-11-2018
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CH A, CHANDIGARH .., !' '# $, % &' BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM ITA NO. 1487/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 LUV GOEL PLOT NO. 29, SECTOR-1 PARWANOO, HIMACHAL PRADESH THE DCIT, CC - II SECTOR-17 CHANDIGARH PAN NO: ANQPG0344N APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. RAJIV DATTA, CA #!' REVENUE BY : SH. ASHISH ABROL, CIT(DR) $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 10/06/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/06/2019 &(/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 15/09/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-3, GURGAON. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS BAD IN LAW AS THE ADDITIONS ARE NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL FOUN D DURING SEARCH OPERATION. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATION OF EUROPE TOUR EXPENSES AT RS. 6,00,000/- AND FURTHER ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE SH. RAKESH GOEL HAS OWNED THE EXPENSES. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SAME IS FINALLY HEARD AND DISP OSED OFF. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT), WAS CARRIED OUT ON 10/03/2016 ON THE BUSINE SS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF M/S OM SONS GROUP OF CASES. EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HA D FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, ON 21/09/2015 SHOW ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 15,46,990/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS. 67,728/ - UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 14 3(1)(A) OF THE ACT. PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 153A OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 07/08/2017 D ECLARING THE SAME INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN WHICH WAS EARLIER FURNISHED ON 21/09/2015. 2 4. THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES FOR SEL F AND FAMILY, DETAILS OF WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R DT. 11/12/2017. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE COMMUNCERATE WITH THE EXPENDITURE LIKELY TO B E INCURRED AT FOREIGN VISIT, CONSIDERING THE COUNTRIES VISITED AND THE PERIOD OF STAY. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCU RRED AND SOURCE THEREOF. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: REGARDING FOREIGN TRAVEL, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AL L THE EXPENSES ON THE FOREIGN TOUR; WERE MET BY MY FATHER SH. RAKESH GOEL. HE HAS ALSO STATED THE SAID FACT IN HIS SETTLEMENT APPLICATION. THE SAME BE KINDLY CONSIDER ED IN HIS HANDS. THE CONFIRMATION OF SH. RAKESH GOEL IS ENCLOSED HEREWIT H. 5. HOWEVER, THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED FROM THE REP LY OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- BY OBSERVING IN PARA 5.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 11/12/2017 AS UNDER: 5.4 THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EXAMINED. IT IS NOTICED THAT SHRI RAKESH GOEL HAS OFFERED A SUM OF RS. 50,000/- ONLY BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND NOT RS. 1,50,000/- AS HAS BEEN CONTE NDED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED O N TICKETS, BOARDING, LODGING, SIGHTSEEING ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPENDITURE ON EUROPE TOUR FOR 12 DAYS IS ESTIMATED AT RS. 6,00,000/-. AFTER GIVING CREDIT TO THE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 50,000/- MADE BY HI S FATHER AND WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 4,00,000/- MADE BY HIM, AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000 /- IS MADE AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE ON FOREIGN TOUR. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING IN PARA 5.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: THE A.O. HAS MADE THIS ADDITION AFTER COMPLETE DI SCUSSION OF FACTS AS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREAFTER B ASIS OF THIS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRAVE L. THE A.O. HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT OFFERED BY APPELLANTS FATHER AND THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SUBMISSION SO AS TO REBUT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED AND HENCE CONFIRMED. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER WAS BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHEREIN THE FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT RS. 20, 000/- OVER AND ABOVE BUT HAD BEEN DECLARED EVERY YEAR BY THE SAID ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSI ON WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE A.O. BUT THE SAME WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) WHO HAD NOT TAKEN THE COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES 3 CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF HIS FATHER, WITH RESPECT TO THE FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES. 9. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SETT LEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF SH. RAKESH GOEL FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID ORDER WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN THE COGNI ZANCE OF THE SAME. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE WERE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN HIS FATH ERS CASE. WE THEREFORE, BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS DEEM IT APPRO PRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO BE DECIDED AFRESH I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/06/2019 ) SD/- SD/- '# $ .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) % &'/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 14/06/2019 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE (+ $ BY ORDER, ; # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
