The ACIT, 4(1), Indore V. Shri Saurabh Sangla, Indore

ITA 154/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 15422714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESH
• Section: 133(6); 131; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 154/IND/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1), INDORE :: APPELLANT VS SHRI SAURABH SANGLA INDORE PAN ANBPS 3195G ::RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI ARUN DEWAN RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.S.DESHPANDE DATE OF HEARING 11.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.04.2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.4.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY , INDORE ON THE GROUND THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN 2 THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.11,74,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN ROUTED THROUGH A PAPER COMPANY. 2. DURING HEARING, WE HAVE HEARD SHRI ARUN DEWAN, LEARNED SENIOR DR AND SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE, LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IN SUPPORT TO THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, DERI VING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAINS AND SALAR Y, ETC. DECLARED TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 6,38,090/- IN ITS RETURN FILED ON 31.10.2007. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY, THEREFORE, NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.9.2008. FURTHER NOTICE U/S 143(1), ALONG 3 WITH QUESTIONNAIRES WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON VARIOUS DATES AND FILED DETAILS. AS PER THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DET AILS OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE, MEANWHILE, SOUGHT INFORMATION FROM THE UC O BANK U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT ABOUT VARIOUS TRANSACTIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE BANK, IT WAS FOUND THAT ON 3.3.2007 THE ASSESSEE GA VE RS.11,74,000/- TO M/S ORNATE LEASING & FINANCE PRIV ATE LIMITED AND ON THE SAME DAY IDENTICAL/SAME AMOUNT W AS RECEIVED FROM M/S SHALIMAR FERROUS METALS PRIVATE LIMITED. MOREOVER, THE SAME AMOUNT, ON THE SAME DAY , CAME TO M/S SHALIMAR FERROUS METALS PRIVATE LIMITED FROM M/S ORNATE LEASING & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAME AMOUNT SIMPLY CHANGED HANDS, THEREFORE, HE DOUBTED THE GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONCE AGAIN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. AS PER THE 4 REVENUE, IN SPITE OF VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES, NO SATI SFACTORY REPLY WAS FILED, CONSEQUENTLY, SUMMONS U/S 131 OF T HE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE INFORMA TION GATHERED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THROUGH INTERNET , THERE WERE TWO DIRECTORS, NAMELY, SHRI RAJESH SHARM A AND SHRI PARAS PATIDAR OF M/S SHALIMAR FERROUS META LS PRIVATE LIMITED, THEREFORE, SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO THEM. ONE OF THE DIRECTORS SHRI PARAS PATIDAR APPE ARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 24.12.2009 WHEREIN WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT, HE SPECIFICALLY TENDERED T HAT HE IS NOT THE DIRECTOR BUT HE IS DOING MARKETING FOR M /S SIGNET OVERSEAS LIMITED AND FURTHER DENIED HAVING A NY CONNECTION WITH M/S SHALIMAR FERROUS METALS PRIVATE LIMITED. EVEN HE WAS UNAWARE ABOUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF M/S SHALIMAR FERROUS METALS PRIVATE LIM ITED. ON FURTHER QUESTIONING EVEN HE DENIED OF KNOWING AN Y OF THE EMPLOYEES OF SUCH COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THESE FA CTS, ONE FACT IS OOZING OUT THAT IN REAL SENSE HE WAS NO T THE DIRECTOR OF THE ALLEGED COMPANY. SHRI RAJESH SHARMA DID 5 NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ALSO N OTE THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.200 9 WAS ALSO PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AS NOBODY APPEAR ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. PURSUANT TO ORDER DAT ED 25.2.2011 U/S 264 OF THE ACT, THE EX-PARTE ASSESSME NT WAS SET ASIDE. ON QUESTIONING FROM THE BENCH REGARD ING APPEARANCE OF SHRI RAJESH SHARMA IT WAS AGREED BY T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SHRI RAJESH SHARMA WILL BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, THEREFORE, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE APP EAL, WE REMAND THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE THAT SHRI RAJESH SHARMA W ILL BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHI N 10 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER SO THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WILL BE IN A POSITION TO EXAMINE HIM AND TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. T HE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 6 FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 11.4.2012. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER S INGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13.4.2012 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/-