Sh Shivji Ram, MANSA V. The Income-tax Officer, MANSA

ITA 217/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80631 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KANCHAN GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.217 & 218(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2000-01 & 2002-03 PAN: ADPPR-3002H SHRI SHIVJI RAM VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, S/O SH.DES RAJ WARD 1(4), C/O M/S. DES RAJ & SONS. MANSA GRAIN MARKET, MANSA; (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:SMT. KANCHAN GARG, DR DATE OF HEARING: 27/11/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/12/2015 ORDER THESE ARE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2000-01 & 2002-03 AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS EACH DATED 13.0 3.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), BATHINDA. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALMOST COMMON. THEREFORE, THESE APPEALS HAVE BE EN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDE R. 2. IN ITA NO.217(ASR)/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTI ON 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE INVESTME NT WAS MADE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE APPELLANT NOT IN THE N AME OF THE FIRM M/S. DES RAJ & SONS WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HAT THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE SOURCE OF MAKING ADVANCE TO SH. TEJA SINGH IN HIS NAME BY THE FIRM A S PER SPECIFIC GROUND TAKEN IN APPEAL. ITA NO.217 & 218(ASR)/2015 2 2. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- MERELY ON THE BASIS OF OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING AND EXAMINING THE DETAILED EVIDENCE FILED DURING THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 3. IN ITA NO.218(ASR)/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTI ON 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE INVESTME NT WAS MADE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE APPELLANT NOT IN THE N AME OF THE FIRM M/S. DES RAJ & SONS WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HAT THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE SOURCE OF MAKING ADVANCE TO SH. TEJA SINGH IN HIS NAME BY THE FIRM A S PER SPECIFIC GROUND TAKEN IN APPEAL. 2. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- MERELY ON THE BASIS OF OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING AND EXAMINING THE DETAILED EVIDENCE FILED DURING THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, AND ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- IN T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AS ADVANCE MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE APPELLANT ON 21.08.2001 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT A S PER EVIDENCE ON FILE, NO SUCH ADVANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON 21.08.2001 BUT A CHEQUES HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT FROM SH. AMRIT P AL ON 21.08.2001 AGAINST ADVANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001-02. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT BOTH THE AP PEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE EARLIER REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A ) BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 02.05.2014 WITH THE D IRECTION TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN QUESTION, AS THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED U/S ITA NO.217 & 218(ASR)/2015 3 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. NOW, THE LD. CIT(A ) AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE B ENCH, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. AGAIN AGGRIEVED WITH THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS BENCH. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN MY AT TENTION TO PARA-6, PAGE-3 OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2000-01, WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT PUT FORWARD THE PLEA THAT HE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE OF THE PART NERSHIP FIRM M/S. DES RAJ & SONS WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF AHRAT AND ADVANCING MONEY TO LANDLORDS AND OTHERS AND THAT TH E FIRM ADVANCED THE SAID LOAN OF RS.1,50,000/- TO SHRI TEJ A SINGH THROUGH THE APPELLANT. IT WAS FURTHER AVERRED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF LOAN STANDS DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PART NERSHIP FIRM M/S. DES RAJ & SONS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, COP IES OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THE FIRM M/S. DES RAJ & SONS ALONG W ITH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS, TRAD ING ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEETS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2011-12 WAS FILED AS NEW AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. BY THE SAID E VIDENCE, IT WAS DEMONSTRATED THAT M/S. DES RAJ & SONS HAD ASSETS BY WAY OF UGRAHI ( I.E. SUNDRY DEBTORS) OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,87,000/- AS AT 31.03.2000. A LIST OF SUCH DEBTORS WAS ALSO PROVIDE D WHERE THE NAME OF SH. TEJA SINGH APPEARED AT SR. NO.29 INDICA TING HIM TO BE A DEBTOR FOR RS.1,50,000/-. 4.1. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR OBSERVA TIONS WERE GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AS W ELL. HE FURTHER PLEADED THAT FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD . CIT(A), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BLOWN HOT & COLD IN THE SAME BRE ATH. ON THE ONE HAND, THE LD. CIT(A) IS ADMITTING THAT THE FIRM HAS ADVAN CED LOAN, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION, WHICH IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYE D THAT THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT AT ALL CALLED F OR AND THE SAME BE DELETED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UP ON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.217 & 218(ASR)/2015 4 6. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE ARE CORRECT, AS THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THAT THE FIRM HAS ADVANCED LOAN, ON ONE HAND AND CONFIRMING THE A DDITION, ON THE OTHER HAND. BY DOING SO, LD. CIT(A) HAS, IN FACT, B LOWN HOT & COLD IN THE SAME BREATH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH, IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.218(ASR)/2015 FOR AY 2002-0 3 IS ALSO REMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH, AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SIMILAR, AS DECIDED HEREIN ABOVE IN ITA NO.217(ASR) /2015. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10TH DECEM BER, 2015. SD/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10/12/2015 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SHRI SHIVJI RAM S/O SH. DES RAJ, 13 4 GRAIN MARKET, MANSA. 2. THE ITO, WARD 1(4), MANSA. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.