Shyam Babu Gupta, Allahabad V. DCIT, Allahabad

ITA 205/ALLD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1261 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K PANDEY
• Keywords: Loose papers

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 205 /ALLD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 3 - 0 4 SHYAM BABU GUPTA, 1130, OLD KATRA ALLAHABAD PAN: ACJPG 9268K VS DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD . ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. PANDEY , D.R., ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI PRAVEEN GODBOLE , A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 27 / 0 8 /2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11 / 09 /2015 ORDER PER: P.K. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CI T(A) ALLAHABAD DATED 0 6 . 02 .201 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AS MANY AS EIGHT GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. GROUNDS NO.1, 2 AND 3 SINCE NOT PRESSED STAND DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUNDS NO.7 AND 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE D OES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 2 4. THE ONLY GROUND S WHICH SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION READ S AS UNDER: 4. THAT IN VIEW OF THE MATTER ADDITION OF RS.30,000/ - MADE AS PER PARA 23 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) AS PER PARA 6, 6.1 & 6.2 IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ARE INCORRECT AND VAGUE HENCE THE ADDITION IS UNWARRANTED. 5. THAT IN VIEW OF THE MATTER ADDITION OF RS. 1 ,00 ,00 0/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER PARA 24 AND HIS ACTION AS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) AS PER PARA 7, 7.1 & 7.2 IS NOT CORRECT HENCE THE ADDITION IS UNWARRANTED. THE ADDITION MADE AND CONFIRMED NOT ON ANY VALID MATERI AL. 6. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER ADDITION OF RS.50,970/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER PARA 25 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HIS ACTION AS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) AS PER PARA 8, 8.1 & 8.2 IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO SUSTAINING OF THE ADDITION OF RS.30,000/ - . 5.1 THE LEARNED AR BEFORE ME CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.30,000/ - WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE LOOSE PAPER . A S PER PARAGRAPH 23 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER , T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY WRITTEN THREE LINES WITH REGARD TO SUCH ADDITION. MY ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS THE RELEVANT LOOSE PAPERS APPEARING AT PAGE 4 AND IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ON THE TOP OF THIS PAPER WORD ROUGH ESTIMATE IS POINTED OUT, NO YEAR IS MENTIONED AND AT THE END 3 WORD REPAIRING IS MENTIONED. THE ADDITION IS JUST MADE ON SURMISES AND CONJUNCTURES. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPO N THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND GO ING THROUGH PAGES 4 AND 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH , I NOTED THAT IF THE ROUGH ESTIMATE , THE DATE 3.12.2002 IS MENTIONED AND EVEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.30,000/ - HAS BEEN ADDED TO BRING A BALANCE TO TAL OF RS.30,320/ - . I N THIS PAPER , I NOTED THAT THE WEIGHT AS WELL AS THE RATE HAS BEEN CALCULATED AND THE TOTAL HAS BEEN WORKED OUT TO WHICH THE RATE IS APPLIED EVEN THE BALANCE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT . T HIS CLEARLY SHOWS THIS PAPER REPRESENT THE INVESTMENT AND I THEREFORE DO NOT F IND ANY ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,000/ - . 8. NEXT GROUND RELATES TO SUSTAINING OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT I.E. SEIZED PAPER 26 REPRESENT THE PURCHASE OF THE ORNAM ENTS FOR WHICH RS.1,00,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED ON 2 5.02.2003 IN THE ACCOUNT OF BHATIA J I . T HE WEIGHT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED 4 438.034. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE SAID ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE PAPER SEIZED. 9. HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY CO NSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE PAPER SEIZED FILED BEFORE ME BY THE ASSESSEE . I N THE PAPER BOOK AS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE APPEARING AT PAGE 7 , W E DO NOT AGREE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS PAPER DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY DATE. TH E DATE HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED AS 25.02.2003 EVEN THE SUM OF RS.1 LAC HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED WHICH HAS BEEN SPENT ON 24/2. THE SAID PAPER IS ALSO DULY SUPPORTED WITH THE PAGE NO.6 OF THE PAPER BOOK . T HE PURCHASE HAS BEEN BROUGHT AT 438.034 FROM PAGE 7 AND AGAIN A SUM OF RS.1 LAC BEING BROUGHT FROM PAGE 7 AND RS.50,000/ - SPENT ON THAT DATE HAS BEEN MENTIONED. THUS, THIS IS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE ORNAMENT AND THEREFORE IN MY OPINION THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION. THE CIT(A) THEREFORE CORRECTLY SUSTA INED THE SAME. THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SAT ISH CHANDRA GUPTA VS DCIT, ITRS 118 & 119 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 AND 2001 - 02 ARE NOT APPLICABLE B ECAUSE IN THAT CASE IT IS APPARENT FROM PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION IN THE CASE BEFORE ME THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING 5 OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE PAPER SEIZED WHICH HAS FULL DESCRIPTION. I ACCORDINGLY SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THUS THIS GROUND HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 10. THE NEXT GROUND RELATE S TO THE ADDITION OF RS.50,970/ - . 11. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ADDITION ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRIES AT PAGE 49 ADDED A SUM OF RS.50,970/ - AS INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. 12. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) SUSTAIN THE SAME. 13. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISS ION S AND GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE NOTED FROM PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT NO DOUBT APPEARS IN TOTAL OF TWO FIGURE S OF RS.49370/ - AND RS.50,970/ - BUT THIS FIGURE DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY DESCRIPTION EVEN NO DATE HAS BEEN MENTION ED ON THIS PAPER EXCEPT THE WORD PAID AGAINST A SUM OF RS.55,600/ - FOR WHICH NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS IS THE SETTLED LAW THAT A DOCUMENT HAS TO BE INTERPRETED IN TOTO AND NOT IN PART. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF THE VARIO US FIGURE S APPEARING AT THIS PAPER 6 SPECIALLY PICKED UP A SUM OF RS.50,970/ - BUT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WHETHER THIS IS IN RUPEE OR REPRESENT THE INVESTMENT OR EXPENDITURE. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DELETE THE S AID ADDITION. THUS, THE GROUND NO.6 STAND ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS DAY, THE 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT ALLAHABAD . SD/ - (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 / 09 /201 5 PRABHAT KUMAR KESARWANI, SR.P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 7 1. DATE OF DICTATION - 02 .09.2015 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER - .09 .2015 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT . 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES TO THE SR.P.S. . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER