ACIT, New Delhi V. Dr. Ram Gopal Gupta, Haryana

ITA 1829/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74191 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH AGG ARWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.1829/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ACIT VS. DR. RAM GOPAL GUPTA CIRCLE-40(1), ROOM NO. 303, KOTHI NO. 429, SECTOR -16A, MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT PLACE, FARIDABAD, NEW DELHI HARYANA PAN: AAHPG0541R. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH AGG ARWAL, C. A, RESPONDENT BY : MS. MEENAKSHI VOHR A.SR.DR. O R D E R PER J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXX, N EW DELHI DATED 10.02.2012. ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U/S 46A WHICH WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSES SEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. DETAILS IN REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONSIDERED. 3. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,32,911/- (IN RESP ECT UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF RS.3,32,911/- AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND OF RS.10,00,000/- ) MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE IS RETIRED GOV T. SERVANT. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.07.2007 DECLARING A TOTAL IN COME OF RS.6,36,847/-. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO THE CHAIRMAN OF SOCIETY BY NAM E IEEE AES SOCIETY. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER U/S 143(3) MA DE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. ON APPEAL THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y DELETED THE SAME. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD MS. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, LD. SR. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND SHRI SHRI PRAKASH AGGARWAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: ON GROUND NO.1, WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, NOT ONLY TO GIVE A REMAND REPORT BUT ALSO TO CROSS EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSIONS OF ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.2 AND 3 PERTAIN TO THE DELETION OF RS. 10 LACS BEING INVESTMENT MADE BY IEEE AES, THE SOCIETY AND SECON DLY AMOUNT RECEIVED 3 BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT FROM IE EE USA TOWARDS ATTAINING TRAINING PROGRAMME. 7. ON THE FIRST ISSUE, THE LD. CIT (A) PARA 1.6 PAG E HELD AS FOLLOWS: 1.6 ON CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED AND CONFIRMATIONS LETTERS FROM IEEE USA, THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,32,911/- IS ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT AND IS WELL EXPLAINED TO MY SATISFACTION. THE APPELLANT HAD GON E TO USA TWICE AND SPENT THE AMOUNT ON AIR FARE AND OTHER AL LIED EXPANSES TO ATTEND THE TRAINING PROGRAMME THERE. I HAVE CONS IDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORT BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS INCORRECT. THE A DDITION OF RS.3.32,911/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 8. WE UPHOLD THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS AS THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. 9. ON THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LACS, THE LD. CIT (A) P ARA 2.3 AND 2.4 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 2.3 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, THE AR OF THE APPELL ANT SUBMIOTTED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: (I) BANK STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY. (II) MUTUAL FUND STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY. (III) AFFIDAVIT FROM THE PRESENT CHAIRMAN THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS DONE BY THE SOCIETY AND SINCE SOCIET Y DID NOT HAVE ITS PAN USED THE PAN OF THE APPELLANT (IV) CONFIRMATION FROM IEEE USA AND IEEE INDIA CHAPTER ABOUT THE STATUS OF APPELLANT AS CHAIRMAN O F SOCIETY DURING THAT PERIOD. 2.4 IN CASE OF CIT VS. DAYA CHAND JAIN VAIDYA (1975 ) 98 ITR 280 (ALL.) THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT MERE LY BECAUSE 4 THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION REGARDING CERTAIN INVEST MENTS MADE BY HIS WIFE AND SONS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THE REVENUE CANNOT TREAT THE INVESTMENTS AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. THE REVENUE SHOULD BRING ON RECORD MATERIAL FROM WHICH IT COULD BE CONCLUDED THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE IN FACT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THIS WAS NOT DONE, NO AMOUNT COULD BE ADDED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT, THE DECISION OF HONBLE COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . DAYA CHAND JAIN VAIDYA (1975) 98 ITR 280 (ALL.) IT IS OB SERVED THAT TREATING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY SOCIETY AS INVESTME NT OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT CORRECT. THE APPELLANT HAD INVEST ED THE AMOUNT FROM SOCIETY BANK A/C IN RELIANCE MF, OF RS. 10,00,000/-. AS THE SOURCE OF MF IS EXPLAINED, NO A DDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN APPELLANTS HAND. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.10LACS FRO M APPELLANTS INCOME. 10. THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERT ES BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THESE FINDINGS AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (J. S. REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 5 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT. S. SINHA