Vaneet Arora, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3622/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 362220114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P CHANDREKAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 3622/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : - 2005-06 VANEET ARORA VS. ACIT UNIT NO. 134, 1 ST FLOOR CENTRAL CIRCLE 19, RECTANGLE -1, SAKET DISTRICT CENTRE NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 017 (PAN AENPA1133P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SALIL KAPOOR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY :SHRI J.P. CHANDREKAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.7.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 /08/2015 O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE. NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR AD JOURNMENT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE WAS REJECTED BY THE BENCH. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER :- 2. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,67 ,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CASH PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CIT(A) HAS FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER CO-OWNER. ITA NO.3622/DEL/2012 VANEET ARORA VS. ACIT 2 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE HAND OF THE OTHER CO OWNER OF THE PR OPERTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT THE CASH PAYMEN T WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. HOWEVER THE SAID AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS NEVER SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY THE OTHER CO PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND THEREFOR E THE DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY O NE WITNESS HAS SIGNED ONE RECEIPT BUT THE WITNESS WAS NEVER CALLED FOR EXAMIN ATION BY THE REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO OTHER EVIDENCE COULD BE PRODUCED BY THE REVENUE TO ASSESS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,67,500/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE. 3. LD. DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENT OF AGREEMENT TO SELL WA S FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE OR THE OTHER CO-OWNER OF THE P ROPERTY HAS NOT SIGNED THE DOCUMENT, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT SAME COULD NOT BE RELIED BY THE AO WHO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. HE REFERRED THE RELEVANT POR TION OF THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. H E RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS A ND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVE RT THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER C O PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. MOREOVER THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS NOT ITA NO.3622/DEL/2012 VANEET ARORA VS. ACIT 3 SIGNED BY THE PURCHASER OR THE OTHER CO-OWNER OF TH E PROPERTY. LIKEWISE THE RECEIPT WAS ALSO NOT SIGNED BY ANY OF THE BUYERS AND ONLY ONE WITNESS HAS SIGNED THEREON. WE FIND THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTH ER INVESTIGATION IN THIS MATTER AND HAS NOT CALLED THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY OR TH E WITNESS WHO HAS SIGNED THE DOCUMENT FOR EXAMINATION AND RECORDING OF THE STATE MENT. WE FIND THAT NO OTHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS RECOVERED FROM THE POSSE SSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE OTHER CO PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY TO SUSTAIN THE A DDITION ON PREPONDERANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES . IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE DOCUMENT RELIED UPON BY THE AO WAS NOT SIGNED BY TH E ASSESSEE OR THE OTHER CO PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE AO DID NOT M AKE ANY FURTHER INQUIRIES BY RECORDING STATEMENTS OF THE SELLERS OR ANY OF THE W ITNESS, WE ARE OF VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 2.67 LACS FOR PAYMENT MADE OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED A ND IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL NO. 2 AND 3 ARE ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF OUR DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE NOT ADJ UDICATING THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL REGAR DING VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/8 /2015. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (G.C. GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDE NT DATED: THE 11/8/ 2015 VEENA ITA NO.3622/DEL/2012 VANEET ARORA VS. ACIT 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 29.7.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 30.7.2 015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER