(Smt.) Rajni Singh Patel, Lucknow V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

ITA 478/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 47823714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR A K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Valuation report

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.478/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 06 SMT. RAJNI SINGH PATEL, HIG 9, SECTOR L, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW 226024. PAN:AIRPP9251F VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUCKNOW (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.575/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 06 ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUCKNOW VS. SMT. RAJNI SINGH PATEL, HIG 9, SECTOR L, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW 226024. PAN:AIRPP9251F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C. A. REVENUE BY DR. A. K. SINGH, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 15/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14/10/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVEN UE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) III, LUCKNOW DATED 22. 03.2014 FOR A.Y. 2005 06. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE FIR ST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THIS THAT THERE IS NO ABATEMENT OF ANY ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ASSESSMENT PENDING ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH I.E. 19.11.2008 AND 2 NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN SEARCH AND T HEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT VALID. THE SECOND GRIEVANCE IS ABOUT A DDITION OF RS. 255,685/- SUSTAINED BY CIT (A). 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME C ONTENTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE CIT (A). LEARNED DR OF THE REVE NUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. REGARD ING THE FIRST GRIEVANCE AS PER GROUND NO. 1, WE FIND THAT THE SAM E IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAJ KUMAR ARORA. ACCORDINGLY, BY RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT, THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 5. REGARDING MERIT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 255,685/- SUSTAINED BY CIT (A), WE FIND THAT THESE PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUT Y ETC. WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH AND SOURCE OF CASH COULD NOT BE EX PLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US. HENCE, O N THIS ISSUE ALSO, WE FIND NO MERIT. THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL. ONLY GRIEV ANCE OF THE REVENUE IS ABOUT ADDITION OF R. 19,33,767/- DELETED BY CIT (A). LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT AS PER PAGE 29 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO, THE VALUE AS PER DVO ALS O WAS ONLY RS. 28.14 LACS ALTHOUGH IN TWO YEARS I.E. A. Y. 20058 06 AN D 2006 07 AND SURRENDER BY SHRI K. N. SINGH PATEL WAS RS. 30 LACS BUT IN ONE YEAR ONLY I.E. A. Y. 2006 07 AND FOR THIS REASON, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION IN THE PRESENT YEAR OF RS. 19,33,767/- BEING VALUE DETERMINED BY T HE A.O. FOR THIS YEAR. HE 3 ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOTED THAT IN REVISED VALUATION REPORT, THE DVO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE YEAR OF INVESTMENT W AS WRONG IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE AMOUNT DECLARED BY SHRI K. N. SINGH PATEL OF RS. 30 LACS IS MORE THAN THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR PARTICULARLY WHEN THE DVO IS NOT SURE ABOUT THE YEA R OF INVESTMENT AND IF THE YEAR OF INVESTMENT IS ACCEPTED AS A. Y. 2006 07, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT T HE SURRENDER BY SHRI K. N. SINGH PATEL OF RS. 30 LACS IS NOT FOR THIS PROPERTY AND HIS OBJECTION IS THIS ONLY THAT THE ADDITION AS PER DVO IS IN A.Y. 2005 06 AND THERE IS NO SURRENDER IN THAT YEAR. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 10. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE AND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD. SD. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED:14/10/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGIST RAR