KRISHNA KUMAR LALPURIA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 347/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 34723114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: O P AGGARWALAR
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH B JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.L. KALRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.347/JP/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 PAN:ABBPL8406F SH. KRISHAN KUMAR LALPURIA, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFI CER, JAIPUR. WARD 2(3), JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI O.P. AGGARWAL,AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K.MEENA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.01.2012. ORDER PER R.K. GUPTA, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A), JAIPUR, DATED 02.02.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.6,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN S HORT, THE ACT). DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN HAVING RECEIVED LOAN FROM THREE PARTIES I.E. SH. MA HENDER SHARMA (RS.1,50,000/-), SMT. KRISHNA (RS.1,50,000/-) AND S MT. BHAWNA 2 (RS.3,00,000/-). AS PER ORDER OF THE AO, THE INFORM ATION WAS GATHERED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN RESPECT OF M/S. B.C. PUROHIT & CO. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES WHO HAS PROCURED BOGUS ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY WAY OF LOANS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE T HESE PARTIES. HOWEVER, THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED. BUT CONFIRMATIONS OF THESE PARTIES WERE FILED. THEREAFTER, THE AO ISSUED SHOW NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131 TO SH. MAHENDRA SHARMA AND SMT. BHAWANA. SUMMONS WERE SERVED AND IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED, SH. MAHENDRRA SHARMA ADMITTED THAT HE HA S TAKEN THE MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE AFTER ISSUING CHEQUE IN THE SHAPE OF L OAN. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE AO DREW ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BOGUS AS THE PARTIES WERE ONLY ENTRIES PROVIDER. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.6,00,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LD . CIT(A) AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FOUND THAT THE MATT ER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO CONFRONT THE STATEMENTS OF THE PA RTIES RECORDED. WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIAL WHICH IS USED FOR MAKING ADDITION, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, AS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONFRONTED 3 BEFORE DRAWING ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE. IN VIEW OF T HESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF J USTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH. 4. REMAINING ISSUE IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN W ITHDRAWALS OF RS.36,000/-. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS HAVING ONLY THREE MEMBERS IN FAMILY I.E. ASSESSEE HIMSELF, HIS WIFE AND ONE CHILD, WHO IS NOT EVEN SCHOOL GOING AND, THEREFORE, THE HOUSEHOLD EXP ENSES SHOWN AT RS.36,000/- WAS REASONABLE. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFI ED WITH THE WITHDRAWALS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE ESTIMATED TH E HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS AT RS.96,000/- AND THUS, MADE THE ADDIT ION OF RS.60,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE L D. CIT(A) AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO HOLD THAT RS.36,000/- WERE NO T SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE COMMON KITCHEN EXPENSES. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESS EE IS LIVING IN A JOINT FAMILY WITH HIS PARENTS AND SHARE COMMON KITCHEN AN D NEITHER ANY RENT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ONE C HILD WHO IS ALSO NOT GOING 4 TO SCHOOL EVEN. THEREFORE, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CON CRETE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE ESTIMATION OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS WAS NOT JU STIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.01.2012. SD/- SD/- (N.L. KALRA) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED : 20.01.2012. /SKR/ COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE ASSESSEE:M/S. KRISHAN KUMARLALPURIA, JAIPUR THE ITO WARD 2(3), JAIPUR. THE CIT (A), THE CIT, THE D/R, ITAT, JAIPUR. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 347 /JP/2011 BY ORDER,