Syeed Anwar Saeed, Aligarh V. ACIT, Aligarh

ITA 388/AGR/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7050 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HOMI RAJVANSH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Peak credit
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 388 & 207/AGRA/2004 ASSTT. YEAR : 1999-2000 & 2000-01 SYED ANWAR SAEED, VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1, JAMIA URDU COMPLEX, ALIGARH. MEDICAL ROAD, ALIGARH. (PAN : AFAPS 7768 A) ITA NO. 442 & 244/AGRA/2004 ASSTT. YEAR : 1999-2000 & 2000-01 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1, VS. SYED ANWAR SAEED, ALIGARH. JAMIA URDU COMPLEX, MEDICAL ROAD, ALIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI HOMI RAJVANSH, CIT/DR. ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. : ALL THESE CROSS APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST TH E ORDERS OF THE CIT(A).DATED 06.07.2004 AND 03.02.2004 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 1999-2000 AND 2000-01. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THO UGH NOTICES WERE SENT FROM TIME TO TIME. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FILED ON 15.10.200 4 AND WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20.12.2006. THEREAFTER THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED FOR 02.01.200 7, 09.01.2007, 06.02.2007, 28.03.2007, 08.05.2007, 05.07.07, 05.09.07, 06.09.07, 19.10.07, 07.12.07, 15.04.08, 01.05.08, 25.05.08, 29.06.09, 16.07.09, 07.09.09, 18.09.09, 12.10.09, 2 8.01.10, 28.02.2010, 26.05.10, 24.06.10, 19.07.10, 25.08.10, 26.08.10, 16.11.10, 03.12.10, 2 8.12.10, 19.01.11, 20.01.11 AND THEN 2 31.03.11. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE E VEN THOUGH THE NOTICES WERE SENT THROUGH REGISTERED AD AND ON SOME OF THE DATES, NOTICES ALS O GOT RETURNED AND WERE SERVED THROUGH LEARNED DR. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UN-ADMITTED, AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING BOTH OF HIS APPEALS. THE LAW ASSISTS ONLY THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT OF THEIR RIGHTS, AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEM. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTAN CES, KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED, 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND BY THE HIGHER COURTS, AS IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE TREAT THE ASSESSEES APPEALS AS UN-ADM ITTED, AND DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE. 3. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS A PPEALS : GROUNDS IN ITA NO. 442/AGRA/2004 (A.Y. 1999-2000) : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DIRECTING THE A.O. TO CONSIDER THE SALARY AMOUNTING TO RS.59,05,832/- IN THE HANDS OF M/S. JAMIA URDU AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THA T SO CALLED AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY PAID AS SALARY FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEV ANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. GROUNDS IN ITA NO. 244AGRA/2004 (A.Y. 2000-01): 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING RS.2 LACS OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.14, 60,000/- MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING THE DEPOSITS FOUND IN ACCOUNT NO.3070 OF S BI AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE SUM DE POSITED IN THIS ACCOUNT WAS OF HIS PAST SAVINGS. ALSO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (A) HERSELF HAS NOT FOUND ANY FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDI NG SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/- OUT OF T HE ADDITION OF RS.13,00,000/- 3 MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF DEPOSITS FOUND IN ACCOUNT NO.17327/- OF BMC DELHI, THOUGH ASSESSEE SIPHONED OFF THIS MONEY FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO CONSIDER THE SALARY AMOUNTIN G TO RS.90,01,453/- IN THE HAND OF M/S. JAMIA URDU, ALIGARH THOUGH IT SHOULD B E ASSESSED IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT THIS MUCH AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY PAID AS SALARY FOR THAT PERIOD. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED DR POINTED OUT THAT T HE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 BE DISPOSED OF FIRST, AS THE ONLY GROUND IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1999-2000 HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. WE, THEREFORE, TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 FIRST . 5. GROUND NO. 1 IN REVENUES APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.14,60,000/- MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER BY TREATING THE DEPOSITS FOUND IN ACCOUNT NO.30740 OF SBI TO BE THE UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 30740 WITH STATE BANK OF IN DIA A SUM OF RS.12,00,000/- AND RS.2.6 LACS. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE O F DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OVER 50 YEARS OF AGE AND HAS BEEN EMPLO YED FOR A LONG TIME EVEN WHEN HE WAS A STUDENT IN ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH. HE H AS SERVED AT A FAIRLY HIGH SALARY. HE WIFE SMT. ZEBA PARVEEN WAS ALSO TEACHING. SHE ALSO ENJOY ED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ABOUT RS.10,000/- PER ANNUM. THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY ONE SON AND ONE DA UGHTER, BOTH UNMARRIED. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSIDERABLE SAVINGS. HE ALSO TOOK INTEREST FRE E LOANS OF RS.2,50,000/- IN JANUARY, 1997 AND MAY, 1998 FROM THE EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND OF JAMIA URDU. HE ALSO WITHDREW RS.4,90,000/- FROM HIS SBI ACCOUNT BETWEEN 14.01.1999 AND 30.03.1 999. THUS OUT OF THE SAVINGS, LOAN AND 4 WITHDRAWALS, THE ASSESSEE MADE THE DEPOSITS OF RS.1 4,60,000/- WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS2,00,000/- BY OBSERVING A S UNDER :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REASONING GIVING BY THE AO O N THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION OF RS14,60,000/- WAS MADE. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AO FOU ND FROM THE BANK A/C NO.30740 OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SBI TWO DEPOSITS OF RS.12,00,0 00/- AND RS.2,60,000/- IN THE MONTH OF MAY, 1999 FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNIS HED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SAID TWO DEPOSITS. THE AO, T HUS, ADDED THE TOTAL SUM OF RS.14,60,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, I T WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS OF 50 YEARS OF AGE WAS IN EMPLOYMENT SINCE LONG IN JAMIA URDU GETTING FAIRLY GOOD SALARY AND T HAT HE HAD ALSO SERVED IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS. IT WAS FURTHER CO NTENDED THAT HIS WIFE IS ALSO EMPLOYED AS A TEACHER AND ALSO HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ABOUT RS.10,000/- PER YEAR. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS ABLE TO MAKE CONSIDERABLE SAVINGS AND THE SOURCE OF TWO DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS OUT O F HIS PAST SAVINGS. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE IS, HOWEVER, N OT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, AND HENCE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDED THAT HE HAS TAKEN INTEREST FREE LOANS OF RS.2,50,000/- IN JANUARY, 1997 AND MAY 1998 AND HAD ALSO WITHDREW RS.4,90,000/- FR OM HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH SBI BETWEEN 14.1.99 AND 30.03.1999 AND THUS HIS PAS T SAVINGS, LOAN AND WITHDRAWALS ENABLED HIM TO MAKE THE SAID TWO DEPOSI TS. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT ALSO FINDS NO FORCE. THE LOAN OF RS.2,50, 000/- WAS TAKEN IN JANUARY, 1997 AND MAY, 1998 WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED F OR THE PURPOSE IT WAS TAKEN. THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE TWO DEP OSITS MADE IN THE BANK A/C. NO. 30740 INCLUDE THE SAID LOAN TAKEN OF RS.2,50,000/-. SIMILAR IS THE CASE REGARDING THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.4,90,000/-. HOWEVER, CONSIDERI NG THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE ARE EMPLOYED, A CREDIT OF RS. 2,00,000/- FOR PAST SAVINGS IS CONSIDERED REASONABLE. THEREFORE, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.14,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF TWO DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO.3074 0 TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED, A SUM OF RS.2,00,000/0- IS CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED. A CCORDINGLY, OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.14,60,000/-, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,0 0,000/- IS DELETED AND THE BALANCE RS.12,60,000/- IS CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR OPINION, THE CIT( A) WAS MUCH REASONABLE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE. OTHERWISE ALSO IN THIS 5 CASE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE MADE THE SAVINGS IN THE EARLIER YEARS, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE LOAN OF RS.2,50,000/- FROM EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND OF JAMIA URDU IN JAN, 1997 AND MAY, 1998. HAD THE ASSESSEE BEEN HAVING ANY ACC UMULATED SAVINGS, HE WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE LOAN FROM EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUNDS OF JAMIA URDU . THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN A SUM OF RS.4,90,000/- FROM HIS SBI ACCOUNT BETWEEN 1 4.01.99 AND 30.03.99, IN OUR OPINION, DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE TOTAL DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS GROUND. THUS, GROUN D NO. 1 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.13,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO.17327. THE B RIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS ADDITION ARE THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EXPLANATION BEING SUBMITTED BY A SSESSEE, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.13,00,000/-. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSE E CONTENDED THAT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE TWICE. ALREADY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THE TRAVELING EXPE NDITURE RECEIVED FROM JAMIA URDU. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FLED DURING THE COURSE O F APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT OUT OF THE SUM OF RS.13 LACS FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 17327 WITH BMC, DELHI, A SUM OF RS.12,00,000/- IS THE SAME AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN DE ALT WITH THE GROUND NO. 5 ABOVE WHEREIN THE ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/- MADE B Y THE A.O. HAS DULY BEEN CONFIRMED. THUS, THIS SUM OF RS.12,00,000/- AGAIN A DDED BY THE A.O. TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WILL AMOUNT DOUBLE TAXATION. AS SATED ABOVE, A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE AO ON THE APPELLANT S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE 6 AO IN HIS REPORT HAS NOT STATED ANYTHING IN RESPECT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. ACCO RDINGLY, OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.13,00,000/-, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF R S.12,00,000/- IS DELETED AND THE BALANCE IS CONFIRMED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND CAREFULLY CONSI DERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ALONGWITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT THE SAME ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF TA & DA RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM JAMIA URDU FOR GOING TO UK WHICH HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE CIT(A) IN PA RA 7 OF HIS ORDER AND CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/-. EVEN NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KN OWLEDGE WHICH MAY PROVE THAT THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT THE DOUBLE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT. T HUS, THE GROUND NO. 2 STANDS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO. 3 IN REVENUES APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.90,01,453/-. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ADDITION ARE THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AS THE REGISTRAR OF JAMIA URDU, HAS WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS. 12,00,000/- FROM CANARA BANK, RS.26,00,000/- FROM UNION BANK AND RS.52,01,453/- A S SALARY FOR MARCH TO NOVEMBER, 1999 FOR THE PERMANENT STAFF. THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,00,000/- W AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 1999 TOWARDS THE SA LARY TO THE STAFF OF JAMIA URDU. SIMILARLY, THE SUM OF RS.26,00,000/- WAS CONTENDED TO HAVE BEE N DRAWN FOR PAYMENT OF THE SALARY FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, 1999. IN SUPPORT, TH E ASSESSEE PRODUCED NECESSARY VOUCHERS AND SALARY REGISTER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SALARY WAS ADJUSTED FROM THE ADVANCE REGISTRAR ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT NOTED THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN THE MANUA L BOOKS AS WELL AS COMPUTERIZED BOOKS UNDER 7 THE HEAD ADVANCE REGISTRAR. AS PER MANUAL BOOKS, TH E DEBIT BALANCE WAS RS.1,83,37,452/- WHILE AS PER COMPUTERIZED BOOK, IT WAS RS.5,56,212/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE TH E ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/-, RS.26,00,000/- AND RS.52,01,453/- RESPECTIVELY, BUT NO SEPARATE AD DITION WAS MADE, AS THE PEAK ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE REGISTRAR ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO R S.2,13,13,485/- WAS ALREADY MADE. 10. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THESE AMOUNTS CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF JAMIA URDU, IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 WERE ALREADY ON IN T HE FOLLOWING MANNER : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ARGUME NTS ON THIS BEHALF AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BE FORE ME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ADDITIONAL CIT, ALIGARH, DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH REMAINED IMPOUNDED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTME NT. SPECIAL AUDIT HAS BEEN GOT DONE IN THE CASE OF JAMIA URDU U/S. 142(2A ) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IN THE REPORT FURNISHED, THE AUDITOR HAS CERTIFIED THAT JA MIA URDU MADE NO PROVISION OF GRATUITY AS PER COLUMN 9(E) AND THAT THE PROVIDENT FUND ALSO APPEARS NOT AN APPROVED FUND. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE AU DITORS THAT AS PER ADVANCE REGISTRAR ACCOUNT, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE AS PER MANUAL BOOKS AND BALANCE AS PER COMPUTERIZED BOOKS AS FOLLOWS : HEAD BALANCE AS PER BALANCE AS PER MANUAL BOOKS COMPUTERIZED BOOKS -------- ------------------ ------------------ ------- ADVANCE REGISTRAR RS.1,83,37,452/- DR. RS.5,56,21 2/- DR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REPORT DATED 04.08.200 3 HAS STATED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALARY AND WAGES AS PER THES E REGISTERS AS FOLLOWS : HEAD BALANCE AS PER BALANCE AS PER MANUAL BOOKS COMPUTERIZED BOOKS -------- ------------------ ------------------ ------- SALARY & WAGES RS.95,52,220/- DR. RS.1,46,41,286/ - DR. THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO FURNISH ANY SUPPORTING E VIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE COMPUTERIZED BOOKS AND THE BASI S OF THE SUMS NOTED IN THE SAME. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPUTERIZED SET OF 8 BOOKS, THE SAME REMAINED UNSUPPORTED. AS REGARDS TH E MANUAL BOOKS, IT IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO THE COMPUTERIZED BOOKS TO THE E XTENT THAT THE DEBITS IN ADVANCE REGISTRAR ACCOUNT ARE APPEARING ONLY ON THE LAST DAY OF THE YEAR, I.E., ON 31.3.2000 WHILE THE SALARY WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID ON MONTHLY BASIS. OTHER IRREGULARITIES SUCH AS MAKING OF NO PROVISION FOR G RATUITY AND NON TRANSFER OF PF ETC., HAVE ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE A.O. IN HIS REPOR T DATED 04.08.2003. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE FACTS REMAIN THAT SALARIES AND WAGES TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.95,52,220/- ARE SHOWN IN THE MANUAL BOOKS WHICH WERE FOUND BY THE I NCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE I.T. A CT. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I HOLD THAT THE ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY AND WAGES HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF M/S. JAM IA URDU AND NOT IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE SALARY REGIST ER AND MANUAL BOOKS FOUND, AS STATED ABOVE. THE TOTAL SALARY AND WAGES FROM MANUA L BOOKS ARE OF RS.95,52,220/-. HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT CONSIDERED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CHALLENGED VIDE GROUNDS NO. 10, 12 & 15 ARE OF RS.1 2,00,000/- RS.26,00,000/- AND RS.52,01,453/- RESPECTIVELY. IN VIEW OF THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.2,13,13,485/- ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK AMOUNT IN ADVAN CE REGISTRARS ACCOUNT, NO SEPARATE ADDITION ON THIS SCORE HAS BEEN MADE. HOWE VER, THE SALARY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12,00,000/-, RS.26,00,000/- AND RS.52,01,453/ - IS ADMITTEDLY PAID FROM THE ADVANCE REGISTRAR ACCOUNT AND THE ADDITIONS TO THIS EXTENT MADE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE OUT OF THE PEAK CREDIT AMOUNT IS DELETED WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE SAME BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF JAMIA URDU IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 ARE ALREADY ON. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE LEARNED DR. THIS IS THE FACT ON RECORD THAT EVEN AS PER THE MANUAL BOOKS, THE SA LARY AND WAGES DURING THE YEAR AS PER RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE WERE RS.95,52,220/- WHILE THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE ADDITION OF RS.90,01,453/- CONSISTING OF RS.12,00,000/-, RS.26, 00,000/- AND RS.52,01,453/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE NECESSA RY VOUCHERS AND SALARY REGISTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO DEFECT IN THESE REGISTERS WAS POINTED OUT EXCEPT THE DIFFERENCE BEING IN THE MANUAL BOOKS AND THE COMPUTERIZED BOOK. GIVING ADVA NCE TO THE EMPLOYEES AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADJUSTING FROM THE SALARY THROUGH ADVANCE REGISTRAR ACCOUNT IS A RECOGNIZED ACCOUNTING PRACTICE AND IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY OR INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THESE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THESE AMOUNTS IN THE HANDS OF JAMIA URDU, WHICH HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN FOR THE PAYMENT 9 OF THE SALARY TO THE STAFF IN THAT CASE. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, IN OUR OPINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALL ED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HENCE, THIS GROUND OF R EVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2000-01 IS DISMISSED . ITA NO. 442/AGRA/2004 (A.Y. 1999-2000): 12. THE ONLY GROUND IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.59,05,832/- AND THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE CIT( A) THAT THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF M/S. JAMIA URDU IN CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THIS EXPENDITURE. THE LEARNED DR POINTED OUT THAT THE FA CTS INVOLVED RELATING TO THIS ADDITION ARE THE SAME AS IN THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2000-01. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE SALARY , WHICH WAS ROUTED THROUGH THE ADVANCE REGISTRAR ACCOUNT, TO WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ID NOT AGREE, BUT WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) HE ISSUED THE SIMILAR DIRECTIONS AS HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. IN FACT, THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2000-01 WAS FOLLOWED FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1999-2000. THUS, IT WA S CONTENDED THAT WHATEVER VIEW IS TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2000-01, THE SAME V IEW MAY BE TAKEN WHILE DISPOSING OF THIS APPEAL. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE LEARNED DR ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT T HE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE AS IS ARISEN IN GROUND NO. 3 IN APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION AFTER FOLLOWING THE 10 APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. SI NCE, WE HAVE ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND STANDS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AND BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.4.11. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (P.K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 21 ST APRIL, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY