Ravinder Kumar Sarine, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1534/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82090 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Corroborative evidences

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 F FF F : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 1534/DEL/2012 1534/DEL/2012 1534/DEL/2012 1534/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2003 2003 2003 2003 - -- - 04 0404 04 SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR SARINE, SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR SARINE, SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR SARINE, SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR SARINE, THE BAHAR, THE BAHAR, THE BAHAR, THE BAHAR, 37, DERAMANDI ROAD, 37, DERAMANDI ROAD, 37, DERAMANDI ROAD, 37, DERAMANDI ROAD, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 074. 110 074. 110 074. 110 074. PAN : AARPS5715M. PAN : AARPS5715M. PAN : AARPS5715M. PAN : AARPS5715M. VS. VS. VS. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -2(1), 2(1), 2(1), 2(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR MALHOTRA, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G.D. AGRA PER G.D. AGRA PER G.D. AGRA PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP WAL, VP WAL, VP WAL, VP : :: : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-V, NEW DELHI DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 FOR THE AY 2003- 04. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS A PPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 1. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 ADDITION OF RS.30,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSE D CASH/INCOME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES THE LD.A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN TREATI NG THE UNSIGNED, UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT TO SELL AS VALID AGREEMENT THEREBY TREATING THE CASH CONTENT (AS STA TED IN AGREEMENT) AS CASH PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY CORROBORATION FROM THE RECEIVING PA RTY. THE ADDITION IS AN ABSOLUTE ASSUMPTION AND IS PRAYE D TO BE DELETED IN FULL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OF THE PREMISES OF M/S AUTO IGNITION LTD., AN UNSIGNED AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHRI PARDEEP GA MBHIR AND THE ITA-1534/DEL/2012 2 ASSESSEE WAS FOUND. THE AGREEMENT WAS WITH REGARD TO PLOT BEARING NO.94, ARJUN MARG, GURGAON. HE STATED THAT THE AGR EEMENT FOUND WAS ONLY THE DRAFT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS NEVER ACTED UPON BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES AND M OREOVER, THE CHEQUES MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT WERE ALSO NOT GI VEN BUT WERE CANCELLED. WHEN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL OF THE PROPE RTY WAS NOT EXECUTED UPON, THE QUESTION OF ANY CASH PAYMENT DOE S NOT ARISE. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH OF `30 LAKHS IS UNCALLED FOR. THE SAME SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE U S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CAS E AND THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, HAD CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 5.3 IT CAN BE DERIVED FROM THE AGREEMENT AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THAT THE DEAL SOME H OW NOT MATERIALIZED AND THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT SIGNED A ND THE CHEQUES WERE RETURNED. BUT, THE AGREEMENT IS SUPPORTED BY PRESENCE OF CANCELLED CHEQUES AND THUS EXISTENCE OF CASH OF RS.30 LACS IN THE HANDS OF ASS ESSEE ON THE DATE OF 25/04/2002 (DATE OF SIGNED CHEQUES B Y ASSESSEE & AGREEMENTS MONTH & YEAR) HAS BEEN PROVED BEYOND DOUBT. ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SOURC E OF THE SAME. EVEN THE AGREEMENT WAS IMPOUNDED FROM ASSESSEES OFFICE AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S A UTO IGNITION LTD., WHICH ONLY ASSESSEE CAN EXPLAIN. ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS. ASSESSEE IS JUST IN DENIAL MODE WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. IN VIEW OF THE SAME RS.30 LACS REPRESENTS UNDISCLOS ED CASH/INCOME OF ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED TO HIS TAXABLE INCOME. ITA-1534/DEL/2012 3 6. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGREED THAT THE DEAL SOMEHOW COULD NOT MATERIALIZE AND THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT SIGNED AND CHEQUES WERE RETURNED. HE, HOWEVER, PRESUMED THAT THERE WAS A SUM OF `30 LAKHS WITH THE ASSESSEE AS O N 25.04.2002 WHICH WAS UNACCOUNTED CASH/INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PUREL Y BASED ON PRESUMPTION AND SUSPICION. WHEN THE AGREEMENT IS N OT MATERIALIZED, THE QUESTION OF ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE A SSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS UNACCOUNTED CASH O R NOT, IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF PRESUMPTION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY UNEXPLAINED CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OF THE BUSINESS PREMISES, NO ACCOUNTED CASH BELONGING TO THE ASSESS EE WAS FOUND. MERELY BECAUSE SOME DRAFT AGREEMENT WAS PREPARED AS PER WHICH ASSESSEE WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY SOME UNACCOUNTED CASH, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HA D UNACCOUNTED CASH. MAY BE THAT THE DEAL DID NOT MATERIALIZE BEC AUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE UNACCOUNTED CASH. WHATEVER HAPPENED, WE CANNOT SAY CONCLUSIVELY BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE OR AVAILABIL ITY OF UNEXPLAINED CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WH ICH IS BASED PURELY ON THE PRESUMPTION OR THE GUESS WORK CANNOT BE SUST AINED. THE SAME IS DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR ) )) ) (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 : 28.11.2014 VK. ITA-1534/DEL/2012 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR SARINE, SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR SARINE, SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR SARINE, SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR SARINE, THE BAHAR, 37, DERAMANDI ROAD, THE BAHAR, 37, DERAMANDI ROAD, THE BAHAR, 37, DERAMANDI ROAD, THE BAHAR, 37, DERAMANDI ROAD, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 074. 110 074. 110 074. 110 074. 2. RESPONDENT : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -2(1), NEW DELHI. 2(1), NEW DELHI. 2(1), NEW DELHI. 2(1), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR