ITO, Meerut V. Dr. Tej Pal Singh, Meerut

ITA 5081/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81858 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JM AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, J.M ITA NO: 5081/DEL/2010 AY : - 2006-07 ITO, VS. DR. TEJ PAL SINGH WARD 2 (4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN M/S. DAG AR HOMEO CLINIC, BHAINSALI GROUND S HIV LOK, KANKER KHERA MEERUT. MEERUT PAN ABXPS7655R (APPELLANT) (RESP ONDENT) APPELLANT BY :S HRI VINOD KUMAR GOEL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT :SH RI SAMEER SHARMA, SR. DR O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 17.8.201 0 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. WHETHER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS IN VIEW OF THE NON-PROD UCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. WHETHER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON A CCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND TREATING THE SAME AS LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL REQUIRED TOBE PRODUC ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. WHETHER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO BANK AT RS. 73,764/- BEING 2/3 RD OF THE INTEREST OF ITA 5081/DEL/2010 AY 2006-07 ITO VS. DR. TEJ PAL SINGH 2 RS. 1,10,645/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE LOAN WAS IN THE NAME OF 3 PERSONS AND HENCE ASSESSEES LIABILITY TO PAY INTER EST WAS ONLY 1/3 RD OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT. 4. WHETHER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE AT R S. 5 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOO L BUILDING IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THE INVESTMEN T IN SCHOOL BUILDING AS TAKEN AND ASSESSMENT BY THE AO. 5. WHETHER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 40 ,000/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PE RSON FROM WHOM THE UNSECURED LOANS WERE OBTAINED AND THUS COULD N OT ESTABLISH IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANS ACTION AT ALL. 6. WHETHER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 56,240/- IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY BI LL OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR PURCHASE OF MEDICINES. 7. WHETHER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 28 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS IGNORING THE SIZE OF T HE FAMILY AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS VITAL TO DETERMINE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 2. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI SAMEER SHARMA, LD. SR. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND SHRI VINOD KUMAR GOEL LD. ADVOCA TE. 3. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE AO AND THIS HAS RESULTED IN VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES AND THAT THE FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OR EXAMINING THE BOOKS HIMSELF, HAS GRANTED RELIEF. HIS CASE IS THAT EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE IS BASED O N THE FACT THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED. ITA 5081/DEL/2010 AY 2006-07 ITO VS. DR. TEJ PAL SINGH 3 4. SHRI VINOD KUMAR GOEL SUBMITS THAT HE HAS P RODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THAT THE ADDITION RELATABLE TO NON PRO DUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WAS ESTIMATION OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME WHI CH IS ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 30,797/-. 5. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE FIND T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AT PARA 4.4 OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS :- 4.4 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AOS ORDER AND THE AR S SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. THE ONLY BASIS FOR THE AO TO MAKE THE AD DITION AS OBSERVED BY HIM IS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODU CED. NON-PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE APPEL LANT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALLEGED TEMPERING WITH THE ORDER SHEET BY THE A O. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SHEET DOES REVEAL SUBSTANCE IN THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE AR. I AM CONSTRAINED TO OBSERVE THAT ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE AR REGARDING TAMPERING WITH THE ORDER SHEET BY THE AO AS STATED UNDER PARA 4.3(5)(B) TO (D) APPEAR TO BE CORRECT. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENC ES SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON 20.10.2008. IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRODUCTION OR NON-PRODUC TION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, I FIND THAT THE AO COLLECTED PLETHORA OF INFORMATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS, HOWEVER, NOT COME U P WITH ANY, EVEN REMOTELY, TANGIBLE BASIS TO ESTIMATE THE PROFESSION AL INCOME AT RS. 2,00,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 1,69,203/- SHOWN. THE APP ELLANTS PROFESSIONAL INCOME SINCE A.Y. 2003-04 HAS BEEN PRO GRESSIVE. SUCH INCOMES SHOWN WERE ACCEPTED IN THE PAST, ONCE UNDER SECTION 143(3) ITA 5081/DEL/2010 AY 2006-07 ITO VS. DR. TEJ PAL SINGH 4 ALSO. THERE BEING NO BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE PROFE SSIONAL INCOME, THE ADDITION MADE IS DELETED. 6. THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED OR CONTROVERT ED THESE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND ALSO KEEP ING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE RELATABLE TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEING ONLY RS. 30,797/-, THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS TOBE UPHELD AND ALL GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE HAVE TO BE DISMISSED. WE SPECIFICALLY R ECORD THAT THE SAME ARGUMENTS ARE ADVANCED FOR ALL THE GROUNDS AND NO S EPARATE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FOR EACH OF THE GROUNDS. THUS OUR DECISION FOR ALL THE GROUNDS IS THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH OCTOBER,2014. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 15 TH OCTOBER,2014 *VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2. RESPONDENT; 3. CIT; 4. CIT(A); 5. DR; 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR