ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), Nagpur V. SHRI VIJAY DANGE , Nagpur

ITA 201/NAG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93378 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO.201 /NAG/2012 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 2002-03. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SHRI VIJAY DANGRE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR. V/S. 4428, ANAND NAGAR, NEAR SANGAM TALKIES, SAKKARDARA, NAGPUR. PAN ACJPD819 5N. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY SHRI P.R. MANE. RESPONDENT BY : SH RI ABHAY AGRAWAL. DATE OF HEARING - 21-04-2015 DATE OF ORDER 8 TH MAY,2015 O R D E R PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-I, NAGPUR DATED 20-03-2012 AND PERTAIN S TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` .19,50,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 2 3. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE, ONE DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED WH ICH CONTAINS WRITTEN DETAILS OF CASH EXPENSES INCURRED. THAT THE EXPENSES MENTIONED ON THIS PAGE ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT APPEARING ANYWHERE IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEES FIRM. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IN CASH BY T HE ASSESSEE. HE PROCEEDED TO ADD ` .19,50,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXP LAINED EXPENDITURE. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETE D THE ADDITION HOLDING AS UNDER : I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATTER. IT IS N OT DISPUTED THAT THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE FIRM M/S MAHARAJA DEVELO0PERS. A.O. HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE MAIN PARTNER IN THE SAID FIRM AND IS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE DAY TO D AY AFFAIRS. ON PERUSAL NOF PAGE NO. 96 IT IS SEEN THAT THIS AMOUNT CONTAINS D ETAILS OF SPECIFIC AMOUNTS INCURRED ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH ARE TREATED AS CAS H EXPENDITURE. THE AMOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2002-03 IS ` .19,50,000/-. HOWEVER APPELLANT HAS REBUTTED THE A.OS ASSUMPTIO N THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS PERTAIN TO THE APPELLANT POINTING OUT THAT THE ENTRIES ARE NOT IN THE HAND WRITING OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THIS IS A DUMB DOCUMENT. AR HAS POINTED OUT THAT WHILE AO HAS CONCLUDED THAT T HESE PAPERS BELONGS TO SHRI VIJAY DANGRE, NO STATEMENT U/S 132(4) WAS RE CORDED FROM APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT AO HAS PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS LOOSE PAPER PERTAINS TO THE A PPELLANT WITHOUT BRINGING IN ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR CONDUCTING ANY ENQUI RY IN THE MATTER. EVEN THE PRESUMPTION AVAILABLE U/S 292 C DOES NOT SUPP ORT THE A.OS STAND AS THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES O F THE FIRM MAHARAJA DEVELOPERS. IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHAT WAS THE BAS IS ON WHICH AO HAS ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE AMOUNTS PERTAIN TO AS SESSEE SHRI VIJAY DANGRE. I THEREFORE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ASCERTAINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECO RD TO SUPPORT OR CORROBORATE THE AOS STATEMENT THAT THIS AMOUNT RELATES TO TRANSACTIONS MADE BY SHRI VIJAY DANGRE. AO IS DIRECTED TO DELET E THIS ADDITION. 3 4 AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE FIRM M/S MAHARAJA DEVELOPERS WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NO TED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. NO STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) WAS REC ORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION THAT THIS DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY BEC AUSE THE EXPENDITURE INVOLVED IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE PRESUMPTION AVAILABLE UNDER SE CTION 292C DOES NOT SUPPORTS THE AO S STAND AS THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SEIZED F ROM THE PREMISES OF THE FIRM MAHARAJA DEVELOPERS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH MAY, 2015. SD/- S D/- (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 8 TH MAY, 2015. 4 COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT, NAGPUR. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. T RUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR WAKODE