The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji., Panaji V. Shri Soumit Ranjan Jena., Goa

ITA 294/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1250 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT GADEKAR LD
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA SINGH SAINI, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 276, 292 &293 /PAN/ 2015 : (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08, 09 - 10 & 10 - 11 ) SHRI SOUMIT RANJAN JENA , VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX M/S PISCES EXIM, SECOND FLOOR, CENTRAL CIRCLE PANAJI . PELICAN BUILDING, OPP. LOHIA MAIDAN, MARGAO - GO A. PAN : ACFPJ8109G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO 294 TO 297 /PAN/2015 : (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08, 08 - 09, 09 - 10 & 10 - 11 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHRI SOUMIT RANJAN JENA , CENTRAL CIRCLE PANAJI . M/S PISCES EXIM, SECOND FLOOR, PELICAN BUILDING, OPP. LOHIA MAIDAN, MARGAO - GOA. PAN : ACFPJ8109G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI PRASHANT GADEKAR , LD. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 08/08 /2016 DATE OF ORDER : 08/08 /2016 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, J.M : ITA 276/PAN/2015 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA 294/PAN/2015 IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A) PANAJI 2 IN APPEAL NO ITA 27/CIT (A)/PNJ - 2/14 - 15 DT. 24/03/2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08. - 2 - ITA NO. 295/PAN/2015 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) PANAJI 2 IN APPEAL NO ITA 28 /CIT (A)/PNJ - 2/14 - 15 DT. 24/03/2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09. ITA NO 292/PAN/2015 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AND ITA 296/PAN/2015 IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A) PANAJI 2 IN APPEAL NO ITA 29 /CIT (A)/PNJ - 2/14 - 15 DT. 23 /03/2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 ITA NO 293/PAN/2015 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA 297/PAN/2015 I S THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A) PANAJI 2 IN APPEAL NO ITA 30/CIT (A)/PNJ - 2/14 - 15 DT. 26/03/2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI PRASHANT GADEKAR, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. HOWEVER SHRI DIWAKAR R SINGH HAS FILED AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER SUBMITTING THAT HE IS SUFFERING FROM LOW BLOOD SUGAR AND CONSEQUENTLY REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT MUST BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEALS ON 24/06/2015 THE APP EAL ORIGINALLY POSTED ON 14/09/2015 THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 06/10/2015 AND AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 11/012/106 AND AGAIN TO 08/03/2016 AND AGAIN TO 10/05/2016, 21/06/2016, 19/07/2016, 02/08/2016. ON 02/08/2016 SAID SHRI DIWAKAR R SINGH APPEARED ON BEHALF OF AS SESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE BRIEF WAS HANDED OVER TO HIM ONLY 24 HOURS BEFORE THE HEARING AND THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FARE PLAY HE SHOULD BE GRANTED ONE WEEKS TIME FOR PREPARING THE CASE. HE SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR ADJOURNMENT TO 08/08/2016. ALL THE ADJOURNMENT ARE ONLY FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE THIS BEING SO WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO GRANT THE ADJOURNMENT ANY FURTHER AND THE APPEAL IS BEING DISPOSED OFF EX - PARTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 02/08/2016 . ONE OF THE MAIN CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH NOR RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY NO ADDITIONS WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. WHEN THIS WAS PUT TO THE LD. DR TO POINT OUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIA L WAS FOUND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH - 3 - CONDUCTED ON 12/10/2010 AND WHETHER THE SAME HAS BEEN USED FOR MAKING THE A DDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T HE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ARE NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH BUT ON THE BASIS OF THE DISALLOWANCES MADE FROM THE P&L ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. IT WAS SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITT EN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. A PERUSAL OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA REPORTED IN 380 ITR 573 (DEL) AS ALSO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ANIL K UMAR BHATIA REPORT ED IN 352 ITR 493 (DEL) SHOWS THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD ALTHOUGH SECTION 153A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR OTHER POST SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABL E WITH THE AO WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY , AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THE SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. ADMITTEDLY A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL HEREIN CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIP LES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA AND ANIL KUMAR BHATIA REFER TO SUPRA WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE UNSUSTAINABLE AS THEY ARE NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND WE C ONSEQUENTLY DELETE THE SAME. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 8.08 .2016. SD/ - (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER - 4 - PLACE: PANAJI - GOA DATED : 0 8/08 /2016 * NANU * COPY TO : ( 1 ) APPELLANT ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) CONCERNED ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI