ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Alok Mangal, New Delhi

ITA 2287/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1282 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHIM SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAILESH GUPTA CAS
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 234B; 133(6); 147

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 2287 & 2470/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2287/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2001-2002 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(4), NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 214, DRUM SHAPED BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI 110 002 VS. SH. ALOK MANGAL, 466, GALI SHEESH MAHAL, SITA RAM BAZAR, DELHI 110 006 (PAN/GIR NO. : ABQPM6976Q) AND I.T.A. NO. 2470/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2001-2002 SH. ALOK MANGAL, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 466, GALI SHEESH MAHAL, WARD 28(4), SITA RAM BAZAR, NEW DELHI DELHI 110 006 (PAN : ABQPM6976Q) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SALIL AGGARWAL, SH. RAVI PRATAP MALL & SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, CAS DEPARTMENT BY : SH. BHIM SINGH, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND A SSESSEE EMANATE OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS)-XXV, NEW DELHI DATED 15.3.2010 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 2287 & 2470/DEL/2010 2 (I) IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICT ED THE ADDITION OF ` 22,78,823/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCL OSED BANK ACCOUNT TO ` 10,54,214/-. (II) IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTI NG THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE OPENING BALANCE OF ` 1,77,718/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2000-01. (III) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) O F APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING O THIS APP EAL. 3. THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL REA D AS UNDER:- 1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT HOLDING THAT, INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT HAD BEE N MADE WITHOUT SATISFYING PRECONDITIONS IN THE ACT AND THE REFORE, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND, DESERVED TO BE QUASHED AS SUCH. 2) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 10,54,214/- REPRESENTING THE ALLEGED UNEXPLA INED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 2.1) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS), WHILE MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION, HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, DOC UMENTARY ITA NOS. 2287 & 2470/DEL/2010 3 EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND, STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HENCE, ADDITION MADE IS ALTOGETHER MISCONCEIVED, MISP LACED AND WHOLLY UNSUSTAINABLE. 2.2) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT WERE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM M/S. R.M. ELECTRONICS WHO HAD BEEN INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED SUC H SALE TO THE LEARNED OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS AND THUS, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE EVIDENC E, EVEN THE LEARNED OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSIT AND, THEREFORE, FINDING TH AT DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE NOT EXPLAINED, IS ALTOGETHER ERRONEOUS, CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE ON RECOR D AND THUS, UNSUSTAINABLE. 2.3) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN FAILING T O APPRECIATE THAT THE LEARNED OFFICER HAD NEVER DISPUTED THE FAC TUM OF BUSINESS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF GOODS BY THE APPEL LANT TO R.M. ELECTRONICS AND ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT SOURCE OF PURCHASE MADE OF RS. 7,05,213/ - IN THE INSTANT YEAR TOGETHER WITH THE OPENING BALANCE OUTS TANDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF R.M. ELECTRONICS HAD NOT BEEN EXPLAINED AND THUS, THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CHANGING THE ENTIRE COMPLEXI ON OF THE MATTER WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY MUCH LE SS VALID OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT ARE NOT ONLY WIT HOUT JURISDICTION BUT OTHERWISE BASED ON SURMISES, CONJECTU RES ITA NOS. 2287 & 2470/DEL/2010 4 AND SUSPICION AND HAVE BEEN ARRIVED IN DISREGARD OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND ARE THUS, ILLEGAL, INVALID AND UNTENABLE. 2.4) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION MADE UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FURNISHING SUCH EVIDENCE I N THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, SUCH EVIDENCE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AND CONSIDERED. 2.5) THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT 'TO NOW CITE PAUCITY OF TIME AND INA DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS OF A HITHER TO UNREPORTED BUSINESS WOULD AMOUNT TO BLATANT MISUSE A ND MISAPPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE' I S HIGHLY ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO BOTH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THUS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 2.6) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT REFR AINED FROM COMING CLEAN EVEN IN THE FACE OF INCONTROVERTIBL E EVIDENCE OF UNREPORTED TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT AND CONSEQUENTIAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE SA ID FINDING TOO, IS BASED ON SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND S USPICION AND HENCE, NOT TENABLE. ITA NOS. 2287 & 2470/DEL/2010 5 2.7) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT EVID ENCE FILED TO SUPPORT CASH PURCHASE MADE BY THE APPELLANT FROM THANCHINGI & SONS, AIZAWAL, MIZORAM IS NOT TENABLE O N MERITS HAS GIVEN NO BASIS IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CO NCLUSION AND HAS MECHANICALLY ARRIVED AT SUCH A CONCLUSION T O SUPPORT HIS PRECONCEIVED AND PREMEDITATED OPINION A ND THUS, THE SAME IS NOT WARRANTED. 3) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 1,77,717/- FROM WHERE UNDISCLOSED IN COME BEGINS IS ASSESSABLE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND FURTHER ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LEARNED OFFICER TO T AKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. THE SAID FINDING IS TOO WHOLLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HENCE, DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. 4) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT INITIATION OF PROCEEDI NGS AND ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT BE QUASHED AND FURTHER, ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY ASSUMING THAT DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE UNEXPLAINED ALONGW ITH INTEREST LEVIED BE DELETED AND FURTHER, IT BE HELD THAT DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE OUT OF THE SALES MA DE TO R.M. ELECTRONICS AND APPELLANT BE ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 2287 & 2470/DEL/2010 6 4. IN THIS CASE IT WAS GATHERED BY THE REVENUE THA T ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, WHICH WAS NOT DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED TOTAL OF ` 17,74,213/- AND WITHDRAWN OF ` 17,92,770/-. ASSESSEE RESPONDED THAT THE ABOVE DEPOSITS ARE IN R ESPECT OF RECEIPT OF GOODS SOLD TO M/S RM ELECTRONICS, AIZWAL (MIZORAM). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) TO THE ABOVE PAR TY. THE PARTY GAVE COPY OF ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS BY LETTER DATED 26.11.2 008. ON THE PERUSAL OF ABOVE DETAILS, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WAS OPENING BALANCE OF ASSESSEE OF ` 14,58,293/- WITH T HE ABOVE PARTY WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D RETURN FILED FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FOU ND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD GOODS OF ` 820530/- TO THE ABOVE PARTY. ASS ESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DETAILS IN THIS REGARD:- TRADING AND P&L ACCOUNT OF ALOK MANGAL FOR THE PER IOD ENDING 31.3.2001 PURCHASE 7,05,260 SALES 8,20,530 GROSS PROFIT 1,15,270 8,20,530 8,20,530 NET PROFIT 1,24,410 GROSS PROFIT 1,15,270 SAVING BANK INTEREST 9,140 1,24,410 1,24,410 BALANCE SHEET OF ALOK MANGAL AS ON 31.3.2000 LIABILITIES ASSETS ALOK MANGAL CAPITAL ACCOUNT 19,83,620 BANK ACCOUNT 1,77,717 CASH IN HAND 3,47,609 SUNDRY DEBTORS 14,58,293 19,83,620 19,83,620 ITA NOS. 2287 & 2470/DEL/2010 7 BALANCE SHEET OF ALOK MANGAL AS ON 31.3.2001 LIABILITIES ASSETS ALOK MANGAL CAPITAL ACCOUNT 20,85,259 BANK ACCOUNT 1,59,160 CASH IN HAND 47,349 SUNDRY DEBTORS 10,50,000 20,85,259 20,85,259 4.1 ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PURCHASE OF GOODS OF ` 705260/- WHICH WAS SOLD TO T HE ABOVE PARTY ON WHICH PROFIT OF ` 115270/- WAS EARNED. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPO RT OF PURCHASE COST AND THE RECEIPT. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT S UPPLY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED THE OPENING BALANCE OF ` 1458293/- AND SALE PROCEEDS OF ` 820530/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSESSEE S INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTION CAM E TO ` 2278823/- (OPENING BALANCE OF ` 1458293 + SALE PROCEEDS OF ` 820530), THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME. 5. BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED SEVERAL ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALONGWITH WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS AND TOOK THE GROUND THAT THE TIME PROVIDED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS VERY SHORT AND THE ENTRIES UNDER QUESTION WAS V ERY OLD. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OBSERVED THAT NO EVID ENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS ABOUT THE PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF SALES HAVE BEEN C LAIMED. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( A) THAT CASH PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BASED IN SITA RAM BAZAR, DELHI AND FROM THANCHINGI AND SONS, AIZWAL, MIZORAM TO MAKE T HE SALES TO ITA NOS. 2287 & 2470/DEL/2010 8 M/S RM ELECTRONICS, AIZWAL. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. FURTHER, LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER:- IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FRO M THE APPELLANT, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS COMPUTED BY DRA WING UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS ACCOUNT FROM THE PURCHASE AND SALES ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK A CCOUNT. THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS ACCOUNT IS AS UNDER:- DATE PARTICULARS WITHDRAWAL DEPOSIT 7/4/2000 00011111 15000.00 15/4/2000 0000 49850.00 2/6/2000 0000 250000.00 14/6/2000 CH DEP IMM VALUE 179640.00 27/7/2000 0000 19940.00 3/8/2000 0000 150000.00 27/9/2000 0000 150000.00 28/9/2000 0000 200000.00 6/10/2000 00011111 15000.00 9/10/2000 0000 20000.00 24/11/2000 0000 25000.00 24/11/2000 0000 49850.00 24/11/2000 0000 99700.00 22/12/2000 0000 84745.00 23/12/2000 0000 71749.00 29/12/2000 00011111 15000.00 13/1/2001 0000 15000.00 13/1/2001 00577766 350000.00 15/1/2001 00011111 13 JAN 15000.00 7/2/2001 0000 199600.00 10/2/2001 0000 35000.00 15/3/2001 00001111 10000.00 31/3/2001 0000 90000.00 ITA NOS. 2287 & 2470/DEL/2010 9 TOTAL 420000.00 1465074.00 BASED ON THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS ACCOUNT, THE TRAD ING ACCOUNT IS DRAWN AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS AMOUNT PARTICULARS AMOUNT TO PURCHASE 4,20,000.00 TO SALE 14,65,074.00 TO GROSS PROFIT 10,45,074.00 14,65,074.00 14,65,074.00 5.1 ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HELD THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED BANK ACC OUNT WAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO ` 10,54,214/-. AS REGARDS OPENING B ALANCE OF ` 1,77,718/- FROM WHERE THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT BEGINS, NEE DS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE F.Y. RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2000-01, F OR WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO TAKE APPROPRIAT E ACTION. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE AND ASSESSE E ARE IN CROSS APPEALS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. AS REGARDS VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT HE SHALL NOT BE PRESSING THIS GROUND. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GRO UND STANDS DISMISSED. 8. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE COGENT EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PURCHASE AND SALES CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND MADE THE ADDITION BY PARTIALLY RELYING UPON THE FIGURES GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE. SIMILARLY, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ALSO COMPUTED T HE PROFIT BY PARTIALLY RELYING UPON THE SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS ITA NOS. 2287 & 2470/DEL/2010 10 REGARD, WE NOTE THAT AS PER DOCTRINE OF APPROBATE A ND REPROBATE WHEN A DOCUMENT IS TO BE RELIED, IT IS TO BE RELIED IN T HE WHOLE. ONE CANNOT ACCEPT PART OF IT AND REJECT THE OTHER. TH US, WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) BOTH HAVE REJECTED SOME OF FIGURES OF THE ACCOUNTS REGARDING HIS UNDISCLOSED ACCOUNT AND ACCEPTED SOME PART OF IT. MOREOVER, WE FIND NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED SOME ADDITIONAL F RESH EVIDENCE WHICH THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS REJE CTED FOR ADMISSION. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT IT WAS ASSESSEES S UBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROVIDED VERY SHORT TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREM ENTS. AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE MATTER S HOULD BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER T HE ISSUE AFRESH IN LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND SUBMISSIONS FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . 9. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS A SSESSEES APPEAL STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/1/2013. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [ [[ [RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE:- 04/1/2013 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES