Manohar Lal, Mandi V. DCIT, Circle , Mandi

ITA 1631/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7572 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHVA BHARTI
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1629 TO 1631/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 TO 2013-14 SH. MANOHAR LAL VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE, S/O LATE SHRI MADHAV RAM, MANDI, H.P. R/O VILLAGE CHIDYANA, P.O. DUDHER, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI (H.P.) PAN NO. ACCPL8204B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH VISHVA BHARTI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANOJ KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.07.2018 ORDER PER BENCH: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE AS SESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 19.06.2017 OF COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PALAMPUR (H.P.) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY. 2. IT IS NOTED THAT ALL THE APPEALS ARE BARRED BY T HE LIMITATION PERIOD OF 84 DAYS. APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS B EEN FILED, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT DESPITE DIRECTIONS, THE LD. C OUNSEL ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PASSING OF THE ORDER. THAT EVEN THE A SSESSEE WAS AN ILLITERATE ITA NOS. 1629 TO 1631/CHD/2017- MANOHAR LAL, MANDI, H.P. 2 PERSON. HE VISITED THE OFFICE OF COUNSEL BUT THE CO UNSEL DID NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS A ND TAKING A LENIENT VIEW, THE DELAY OF 84 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT AP PEALS IS HEREBY; CONDONED AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 3. ITA NO. 1631/CHD/2017 IS TAKEN AS A LEAD CASE FOR NARRATION OF FACTS. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURI NG H.P. STATE ASSEMBLY ELECTION 2012, THE ASSESSEE WAS INTERCEPTED WITH CA SH OF RS. 4 LACS AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS TREATED AS SEIZED U/S 132 (1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO FILE RETURN U/S 153A OF THE ACT FOR THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM T HE DATE OF SEARCH ACTION / SEIZURE. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS COME IN APPEA L AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE FOR THREE YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12, 2012-13 AND 2013-14. SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS CONCERNED , THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS REGARDING SOURCE OF CASH OF RS. 4 LACS FOUND DURING SEARCH RECEIVED BY NAMING FOUR PERSONS, HOWEVER, NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED FORM THE AFORESAID FOUR PERSONS. DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CHANGED HIS STAND AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS IN FACT RECEIVED FORM TWO PERSONS, HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE OR FURNISH EVIDENCE REGARDING THE RECEIPT O F AMOUNT EVEN FROM THE SAID TWO OPERONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE SOURCE OF THE CASH INTERCEPTED FROM THE ASSESSEE, HE TREATED THE SAID CASH OF RS. 4 LACS AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICE HAS ALSO MADE ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 2.50 LACS ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS BUS INESS AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES. ITA NOS. 1629 TO 1631/CHD/2017- MANOHAR LAL, MANDI, H.P. 3 IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATION BASIS IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESS IONAL ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ADDITION OF RS. 4 LACS WAS SUSTA INED FOR WANT OF ANY CONFIRMATION / EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SCORE OF THE CASH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE US, THOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM FOUR PERSONS OUT OF T HE JOB WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID PERSONS BY WAY OF OPERATI NG OF JCB MACHINE. HOWEVER, THE FACT ON THE FILE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY COGENT OF PLAUSIBLE REASON IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTEN TION. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN TH E ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION O F RS. 4 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. ITA NOS. 1629 & 1630/CHD/2017 (AYS 2011-12 & 2012-1 3) 5. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 IS CONCERNED, THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT U/S 153A OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO THE SEIZURE OF CASH IN THE PREVIOUS YEA R RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WHICH WAS TREATED AS RECOVERED DURING SEARCH ACTION U/S 132(1) TO THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL, AT THE OUTSET, HAS RELIED UPON THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT NO. 10/2012 (F.NO. 282/22/2012-IT (INV.V) DATED 31. 12.2012 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT IN THE CASE OF SEIZURE OF THE CASH RECOVERED DURING THE ELECTION PERIOD, THAT WILL BE RELEVANT FOR MAKI NG ADDITION FOR THAT VERY ITA NOS. 1629 TO 1631/CHD/2017- MANOHAR LAL, MANDI, H.P. 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A WILL N OT BE MADE FOR OTHER YEARS. 7. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 ARE NOT SUSTA INABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED TO BE DELE TED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS DISMISSED WHEREAS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 05.07.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR