Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun V. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 4880/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3969 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4880/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 RAM NIWAS GUPTA, 59/6, TYAGI ROAD, DEHRADUN. VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN. PAN : ABIPG9411E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KAPIL GOEL, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ATIQ AHMAD, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 02-01-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-01-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 OF CIT(A)- 2, AGRA (CAMP AT DEHRADUN) RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER :- 1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,20,500/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINE D JEWELLERY U/S 69B OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT SAID JEWELLERY IS VERY WELL COVERED B Y CBDT INSTRUCTION & IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOCIAL & MARITAL STATUS OF ASSESSEE HEREIN. 2 ITA NO.4880/DEL/2016 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM S ALARY, BUSINESS, HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. A SEARCH U/S 132 WAS C ARRIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 26.04.2 012. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLA RING INCOME OF RS.4,65,360/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT DETE RMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.46,85,860/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.40,00,00 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH AND ADDITION OF RS.2,20,500/- ON A CCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS MENTIONED BOTH THE ADDITIONS, HOWEVER, INADVERTENTL Y IN BOTH THE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.40,00,00 0/- BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH IN IDENTICALLY WORDED GROUNDS AND THE ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY REMAINED TO BE TAKEN. ALTH OUGH BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE A SUBMISSION THAT THE GROUND REMA INED TO BE TAKEN INADVERTENTLY, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED THE SAME AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE APPEAL BY RAISING THE GROUNDS FOR THE SAME AND NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATI ON COULD BE FURNISHED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING CBDT CIRCULAR NO.19 OF 2016. HE ACCORDINGLY 3 ITA NO.4880/DEL/2016 REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FI LE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE GROUND AND ADJUDICATE THE IS SUE. 5. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY SUCH GROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) IS FULLY JUSTIFIE D IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT IN THE STATEMENTS OF FACT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE HAS MENTIONED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH AT RS.40,00,000/- AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELL ERY AT RS.2,20,500/-. HOWEVER, IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL, ALTHOUGH THE ASSE SSEE HAS TAKEN TWO GROUNDS, HOWEVER, BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE IDENTICALLY WORDED WH EREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.40,00,000/- ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED CASH ONLY. ALTHOUGH, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS P OINTED OUT THIS MISTAKE AND CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS2,20,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY, WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE S AME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY SUCH GROUND BEFORE HIM. IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE C RAVES LEAVE TO RESERVE HIS RIGHT TO ADD TO, DELETE FROM, AMEND, ALTER OR MODIF Y HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE 4 ITA NO.4880/DEL/2016 OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. CONSIDERING THE TOTALIT Y OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE. WE THEREFORE DEEM IT PROPE R TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADJUDI CATE THE ISSUE ON MERIT. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R. K. P ANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11-01-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI