ACIT, Faridabad V. M/s Om Parkash & Sons, HUF, Faridabad

ITA 3550/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6891 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2009
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DURGA CHARAN DASH
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA : VICE PRESIDENT AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3550/DEL/08 ASSTT. YR: 2000-01 ACIT CIRCLE-1, VS. M/S OM PARKASH & SONS, FARIDABAD. 1074, SECTOR-15, FARIDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. ABIPB1562H ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DURGA CHARAN DASH CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, V.P: THIS IS AN APPEAL, FILED BY THE REVENUE, AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)- FARIDABAD IN APPEAL NO. 301/2007-08 DATED 13-12-200 8 FOR A.Y. 2000-01. 2. SHRI DURGA CHARAN DASS CIT (DR) REPRESENTED ON B EHALF OF THE REVENUE AND NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE. NOTICE FOR HEARING HAS BEEN POSTED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME HAS BE EN RECEIVED BACK WITH THE REMARK NO SUCH PERSON. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS APPEAL IS BEING DISPOSED OF EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN THE PREMISES OF SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL AN D HIS ASSOCIATE 2 CONCERNS ON 3-8-2000. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTA IN DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN FOUND AND IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAD TRANSACTED WITH SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL IN REGARD TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE O F SHARES AND THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS BASICALLY FOR CONVERTING THE ASSESS EES BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE BY UNDERTAKING BOGUS SHARE TRANSACTIONS. IT W AS ALSO ALLEGED THAT SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. CONSEQUENTLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD HAD BEEN INITIATED ON THE ASS ESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TR ANSACTED IN SHARES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 29,44 ,120/-. OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE SHARES, THE ASSESSING AUTHORIT Y HAD TREATED THAT THERE WAS RECEIPT OF RS. 15,61,745/- AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOM E, TAXABLE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH UNDER THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD. IN REGARD TO THE BALANCE OF RS. 13,82,375/- THE AO HAD INITIATED REA SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 15,61,745/- ARE DEALT WIT H IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN IT(SS)A NO. 98/DEL/08 VIDE OUR ORDER OF EVEN DATE. 4. IN REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13,82,375/- WHICH WAS ALSO TREATED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING RE COURSE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 148, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THA T THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS 3 CONVERTING HIS BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE MONEY BY TAKI NG ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF UNLISTE D SHARES. IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), DELETING THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNE D DR AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS STATED THAT THE EVIDENCE CALLED FOR BY HIM HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED AND EVEN T HOUGH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WANTED TO TAX THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 13,82,37 5/- REPRESENTING THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OUT OF T HE TRANSACTIONS OF THE PURCHASES AND SALES OF SHARES NOT DONE WITH SHRI MA NOJ AGGARWAL BUT THROUGH THIRD PARTY, NAMELY, M/S JRD STOCK BROKERS. THE AO HAS PRIMARILY DISCUSSED THE MODUS OPERANDI OF SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL . IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT MADE ANY DISCUSSION NOR HAD ANY EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION IN REGARD TO THE TRANSACTIONS WITH M /S JRD STOCK BROKERS WHICH COULD EVEN HINT THAT THE TRANSACTION WITH M/ S JRD STOCK BROKERS WAS BOGUS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) CLE ARLY SHOWS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD VERIFIED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND AFTER VERIFICATION HAS FOUND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE AO HAD STATED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS, THE AO IN HIS ORDER-SHEET DATED 19-11-2007 HAS ADMITTED THE FILING OF 4 THE INFORMATION. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE CONTRAC T NOTES OF THE SHARES TRANSACTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS HAS ALSO NOT BE EN SHOWN BY THE AO TO BE FALSE, FABRICATED OR WRONG. THUS, IT IS NOTICED THA T THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS IN THE ABSENCE OF ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT THE SHARE TR ANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF R. 13,82,375/- HAS DELETED TH E ADDITION. EVEN BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE AN Y EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THE FINDING AS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A COR RECT VIEW AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN HIS ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25-05-2009. ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ( G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 25-5-2009. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR