ITO, New Delhi V. Smt. Sarla Devi, Prop., New Delhi

ITA 4213/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5731 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHORE B
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY K SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ITA NO. 4213/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3), NEW DELHI. VS. SMT. SARLA DEVI, PROPRIETOR M/S DELHI POLYMERS M-67 SAKET, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHORE B., SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY K. SHARMA, C.A. ORDER PER C.L.SETHI, JM: IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 27/8/2009, PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3)/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN HOLDING SALE OF JEWEL LERY AS GENUINE WHEREIN IT WAS A ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TAKEN IN THE G ARB OF SALE OF JEWELLERY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND NO FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.7,62,500/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SALE PROCEEDS AMOUNTING TO RS.7,62,500/- TOWARDS SALE OF JEWELLERY THAT WAS DI SCLOSED IN THE VDIS, HAS 2 BEEN TREATED TO BE THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF THE ASS ESSEE INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE GARB OF SALE OF JEWELLERY A ND HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMEN T U/S 143(3)/148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CASE IS THAT THE JEWEL LERY SOLD TO M/S BEMCO JEWELLERS PRIVATE LTD. OR M/S BISHAN CHAND MANOJ K UMAR IS NOT GENUINE BUT IS AN ARRANGED AFFAIR TO ACCOMMODATE THE ASSESS EE TO INTRODUCE UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN THE BOOKS. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TREATED THE SALE TRANSACTION TO BE BOGUS AND NON-GENUINE AND REJECTE D THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION I N THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF I.T.A.T, DELHI BENCH A IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL VS. DCIT & OTHERS SPECIFICALLY IN THE CASE OF TEJINDER SINGH (HUF) REPORTED IN (2009) 310 ITR (AT) 99 (DELHI)(SB ) BY HOLDING THAT IN THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH, THE TR ANSACTION OF SALE OF JEWELLERY TO M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE. 4. HENCE, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT T HE JEWELLERY WERE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER VDIS 1997. THE DECL ARATION UNDER VDIS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREAFTER, THE ASS ESSEE SOLD THE DECLARED JEWELLERY ON 18/9/1998 FOR RS.7,62,500/- AND THE SA LE PROCEEDS WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF PAY ORDER DATED 18/9/1998 DRAWN ON VIJAYA BANK, VIGYAN VIHAR, NEW DELHI. THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE S ALE OF JEWELLERY TO M/S 3 BISHAN CHAND MANOJ KUMAR WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S BISHAN CHAND MANOJ KUMAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SALE TRANSACTION TO BE BOGUS IN NATURE. HOWEVER, THE SPE CIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL V. DCIT (SUPRA) HAS TAKEN A VIEW THA T THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF JEWELLERY BY M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR CANNOT BE SAID TO BE BOGUS AND NON-GENUINE. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE OF MANO J AGGARWAL VS. DCIT(SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT( A), WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDI TION. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY SORT OF EVIDE NCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ANY CASH MONEY WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE JEWELER FOR OBTAINING A PAY ORDER IN HIS FAVOUR AGAINST THE SALE OF JEWELLE RY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S INTRODUCED HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN THE GARB OF SALE PROCEEDS OF J EWELLERY IN ITS BOOKS. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE ABOVE, WE U PHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 /3/2010 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (C.L.SETHI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30.03.2010. PSP 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR