The ITO, Bhopal V. Shri Rafi-Ul-Haque, Bhopal

ITA 200/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8024 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Keywords: Salary income; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, AM ITA NO. 200/IND/09 A.Y. 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(2) BHOPAL APPELLANT VS RAFI-UL-HAQUE (PAN AAEPH 4286 M) C/O SHRI GOVIND VASANTA ADV. HOTEL RAJDOOT, GOURAV BUILDING, 7, HAMIDIYA ROAD, BHOPAL RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AVINASH GAUR, ADV. O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM THIS APPEAL IS BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, DATED 13.2.2009. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IS THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LACS MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ALL EGED INVESTMENT MADE IN RECL (RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD .). DURING THE 2 HEARING OF THE APPEAL, WE HAVE HEARD SMT. APARNA KA RAN, LD. SR. DR AND SHRI AVINASH GAUR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT ON VERIF ICATION OF AIR INFORMATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTE D RS.10 LACS IN RECL BY CHEQUE ON 30.6.2005 WHEREAS IN ITS STATEMENT NO SUCH ENTRY WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY ON 31.1 0.2008 ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR. EVEN ON THE NEXT DATE I.E. 5.11.2008, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR NOR FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMI SSION, CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS RIGHTLY ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN RECL AND DUE TO SUDDEN TRANS FER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE AR GUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL. FACTS IN BR IEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY FROM PUNJAB & S INDH BANK AND WAS HAVING NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DECL ARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,03,550/- IN ITS RETURN WHICH WAS FINALLY CO MPUTED AT RS.11,03,555/- MAKING ADDITION OF RS.10 LACS U/S 69 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT OF RS.10 LACS MADE IN RECL. THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE 3 CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE BANK A/C OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW ANY ENTRY FOR THE ALLEGED INV ESTMENT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHO UT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND MERELY BASED ON AIR INFORMATION. AT TH E SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WIT HOUT COMMENTING FURTHER, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TRUE FAC TS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE GENUINE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MAY B E DELETED FORTHWITH FOR WHICH DUE OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, CONSEQUENTLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 8 TH MARCH, 2010. SD SD (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MARCH 8, 2010 {VYAS} COPY TO APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE