ITO, Ward-24(1), V. Bharat Bhushan Dua,

ITA 3897/DEL/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3749 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: L K PAONAM
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI, JM & SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM I.T. A. NO.3897/DEL OF 2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS MR. BHARAT BHUSHAN DUA, WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI. A-28, ARJUN NAGAR, NEW DELH I. PAN: AAEPF0164C APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI N.K. CHAND, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI L.K. PAONAM ORDER PER C.L. SETHI, JM: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14 .6.2004 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOM E SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.13,43,890/-. THE AO ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.54,11,896/- AS UNDER: BUSINESS INCOME RS.41,85,000 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES: ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT OFFERED 3,45,896/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF PROPERTY 8,81,000/- RS.12,26,896/- RS.54,11,896/- 2 3. THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF HIS ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.K. DUA. THE CIT(A) HOLD THAT BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE TAKEN AS DECIDED IN THE CASE OF R.K. DUA, AND AN Y EXCESS DEDUCTION SHALL STAND DELETED. 4. THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN 1. REDUCING INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPORTIONING THE NET PROFIT AS CALCULATED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER AMONG THE ASSESSEE LATE SHRI R.K. DUA AND SMT. SONIA DUA. 2. HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ASSESSING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE THREE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN WHOLLY IN THE HANDS OF ONE AS THE SAME IN THE BUSINESS INCOME F THE ASSESSEE SMT. SONIA DUA AND LATE SHRI R.K. DUA. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE APPEAL OF SHRI R.K. DUA, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TA KEN A VIEW THAT INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF DHABA, AT WHICH PLACE SURVEY HAD T AKEN PLACE, IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI R.K. DUA ONLY. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, THE INCOME FROM DHABA HAS ALSO BEEN ASSESSED IN THE PRESENT AS SESSEES HANDS ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE AO HAS DETERMINED THE INCOME FROM DHABA AT RS.41,85,000/-, AND ADDED THE SAME IN THE PRESENT A SSESSEE HANDS ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE VIEW TAKEN B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF 3 SHRI R.K. DUA, THE INCOME FROM DHABA INCLUDED IN TH E HANDS OF PRESENT ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, IS NOT CALLED FOR. TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH, ACCORDINGL Y, IS DISMISSED, 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 8. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 15 TH JUNE, 2010 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER. (B.C. MEENA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: JUNE, 2010 VIJAY COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXIII, NEW DELHI 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR