DCIT, Ludhiana V. Sh. Rajinder Puri, Khanna

ITA 404/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0011 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 404/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE DCIT, VS. SH. RAJINDER PURI, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III KHANNA LUDHIANA PAN NO. ACNPP5906H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUSHIL KUMAR, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 19.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.04.2016 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA DATED 22.01.2015. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.27 CORES MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, IS CORRECT. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE DECISION OF CIT(A) TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1. 27 CRORES MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WITH RESP ECT TO WHICH NEITHER EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE B EFORE 2 ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ANY SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN CO NFRONTED TO ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS IS CORRECT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH WA S CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL / BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE DUR ING WHICH CERTAIN LOOSE PAPER WERE FOUND. A SUM OF RS. 3 CRORES WAS FOUND DEPOSIT ED IN THE VARIOUS BANKS ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SUCH CASH DEP OSITS WERE OUT OF THE REFUNDS OF THE ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS PE RSONS RELATING TO PURCHASE / SALE TRANSACTIONS OF PROPERTY. SINCE THOSE TRANSACT IONS DID NOT MATURE, HENCE, THE SAID PERSONS RETURNED THE ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED RS. 3 CRORES TO COVER UP THE D ISCREPANCIES / ENTRIES IN LOSS PAPERS / CASH FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE. THE ASS ESSEE THEREAFTER OFFERED SUCH SURRENDERED AMOUNT FOR TAXATION BY WAY OF INCLUDING THE SAME INTO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED CONFIRMATIONS IN RESPECT OF RS. 1.76 CRORES WHICH W AS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH T HE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES RELATING TO THE SOURCE OF DEPOS IT OF RS. 1.27 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION TO RS. 3 CRORES ALREADY SURREN DERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3., IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CI T(A) THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE PROPER TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATIONS RELATING TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.27 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE THE ASSESSEE ONLY A ONE DAYS TIME TO FURNISH THE DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE R EMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 1.27 CRORES DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE C IT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE OBS ERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DISCLOSED RS. 3 CRORES DURING SEARCH OPERAT ION. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE 3 WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3 CRORES FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED BACK F ROM VARIOUS PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SURRENDERING THE AMOUNT HAD ALSO F ILED CONFIRMATIONS IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF RS. 1.76 CORES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FIELD THE CONFIRMATIONS IN RESPECT OF REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 1.27 CRORES BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAXATION AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 CRORES ALREADY SURREND ERED. NOW TO TAX THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 1.27 CRORES WOULD A MOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATIONS BUT DESPITE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY RETURNED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3 CORES SURRENDERED DURI NG THE SEARCH ACTION, AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ADDITION WAS WARRANTED IN THI S CASE. THE LD. DR THOUGH HAS STRONGLY AGITATED THE ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE BY THE CIT(A) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BUT HAS FAILED TO REBUT T HE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN THOUGH THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E IS REJECTED, STILL THE ADDITION OF AMOUNT OF RS. 1.27 CORES WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION TO THE SAME ISSUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, SAME IS UPHELD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.04.2016 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19 TH APRIL, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR