ITO, Muzaffarnagar V. Sh Waseem Ahmad, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 5215/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7359 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAINA SOIN KAPILA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Set aside
• Section: 68; 145; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITO, WARD 2 (1), VS. SHRI WASEEM AHMAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR. S/O SHRI RAIS AHMAD, 854, KAREEM NAGAR, NEAR MINOCHA NURSING HOME, MUZAFFARNAGAR. (PAN : AFYPA9578G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANKIT GUPTA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. NAINA SOIN KAPILA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.07.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 26.07.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, ITO, WARD 2 (1), MUZAFFARNAGAR (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.07.2012 PASSE D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), MUZAFFARNAGAR QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA T HAT :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,1 7,50,140/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM 6 PARTIES AND OUT OF THEM 4 PARTI ES HAVE DENIED ANY DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE ISSUES AT HAND ARE : ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL T AX PAYEE WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM IRON AND STEEL AND HAS FILED R ETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,24,860/-. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NO TICED DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED WITH AMMCO BANK LTD. (C.A. NO.11743) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS. 4,17,50,140/- IN A SINGLE DAY THROUGH NUMEROUS PAY ORDERS EACH AMOUN TING TO RS.49,000/-, WHICH IS DETAILED AS UNDER :- SL. NO. DATE NAME OF THE PARTIES STATED TO BE GIVING PAYMENT CREDIT (IN RS.) 1 20.01.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 11,7 6,000 2 22.01.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 11,7 6,000 3 23.01.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 11,7 6,000 4 23.01.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 12,2 5,000 5 02.02.2009 SARASWATI MET STONE INDIA PVT. LTD., D ELHI 12,25,000 6 03.02.2009 SARASWATI MET STONE INDIA PVT. LTD., D ELHI 12,25,000 7 04.02.2009 SARASWATI MET STONE INDIA PVT. LTD., D ELHI 12,25,000 8 05.02.2009 SARASWATI MET STONE INDIA PVT. LTD., D ELHI 12,25,000 9 06.02.2009 SARASWATI MET STONE INDIA PVT. LTD., D ELHI 12,25,000 10 07.02.2009 SARASWATI MET STONE INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI 12,25,000 11 10.02.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 12, 25,000 12 11.02.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 12, 25,000 13 12.02.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 12, 25,000 14 13.02.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 12, 25,000 15 14.02.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 12, 25,000 16 16.02.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 12, 25,000 17 25.02.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 24, 50,000 18 26.02.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 24, 50,000 19 13.03.2009 SARASWATI MET STONE INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI 15,19,000 20 18.03.2009 AGGARWAL ENTERPRISES, BHATINDA 49,00, 000 21 19.03.2009 AGGARWAL ENTERPRISES, BHATINDA 36,75, 000 22 20.03.2009 STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI 12, 09,141 23 26.03.2009 CHIMAL LAL BHUSHAN KUMAR, BHATINDA 10 ,78,000 JACKSON BUILDER (P) LTD 10,78,000 RONAK TUBEWELL & MACHINERY STORE, BIJORE 2,45,000 SAM INDIA BUILDWELL (P) LTD., DELHI 36,75,000 24 28.03.2009 RONAK TUBEWELL & MACHINERY STORE, BIJ ORE 1,15,315 ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 3 3. AO IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE NATURE OF AFORESAID PA YMENTS ISSUED NOTICE DATED 13.12.2011 UNDER SECTION 133 (6 ) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) TO SIX P ARTIES, NAMELY, (I) M/S. STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI; (II) M/ S. JACKSON BUILDER (P) LTD., DELHI; (III) M/S. SARASWATI MET STONE IND IA PVT. LTD., DELHI; (IV) M/S. SAM INDIA BUILDWELL (P) LTD., DELH I; (V) M/S. CHIMAL LAL BHUSHAN KUMAR, BHATINDA; AND (VI) M/S. A GGARWAL ENTERPRISES, BHATINDA, TO FURNISH ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE I.E. M/S. INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION, MUZAFFARNAGAR AS P ER THEIR RESPECTIVE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AO IN ORDER TO MAKE A DISCREET ENQUIRY DEPUTED INCOME-TAX INSPECTOR TO COLLECT THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS FROM THE AFORESAID PARTIES STATIONED AT D ELHI. CONSEQUENTLY, M/S. STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELH I AND M/S. JACKSON BUILDER (P) LTD., DELHI INTIMATED THAT THEY HAVE NEVER ENTERED INTO ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE PERIOD 01.04.2008 TO 31.03.2010. SIMILARLY, M/S. SARASWAT I METSTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. ALSO INTIMATED THROUGH EMAIL THAT N O TRANSACTION OF ANY TYPE TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THEM AND THE ASSESSEE D URING THE PERIOD 01.04.2008 TO 31.03.2010. SIMILARLY, SAM IN DIA BUILDWELL (P) LTD. ALSO INTIMATED THAT THEY HAVE NO DEALING W ITH THE ASSESSEE PARTY DURING THE FY 2008-09. AO TRIED TO COLLECT T HE DETAIL FROM ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 4 AMMCO BANK LTD. BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 13 3 (6) OF THE ACT BUT THEY HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR INABILITY TO PROV IDE COPY OF PAY ORDERS VIDE WHICH HUGE AMOUNT WAS CREDITED IN THE A CCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED PAYMENT OF RS.24,50,000/- RECEIVED FROM M/S. STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD. BUT AS PER COPY OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH AMMCO BANK LTD. PAY ORDERS TO THE TUNE OF RS.11,76,000/- WAS CREDITED ON 20.01.2009 SHOWING DIFFERENCE OF RS.12,74,000/- WHI CH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. AO ALSO NOTICED THAT ALL THE PAY ORDE RS HAVING ALMOST SIMILAR HANDWRITING OF 2/3 PERSONS AND NONE OF THEM WERE HAVING ADDRESS OF DELHI. AO ALSO RECEIVED COPY OF BANK ST ATEMENT FROM SIX PARTIES VIZ. (I) M/S. BARNALA STEELS INDS. LTD. , MUZAFFARNAGAR; (II) M/S. S.M. STEELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUZAFFARNA GAR; (III) INDOTECH ENGINEERS, GHAZIABAD; (IV) SHREE RAM STEELS, MUZAFF ARNAGAR; (V) SHARDA TRADING CO., MUZAFFARNAGAR; AND (VI) M/S. AK RITI ENTERPRISES, BULANDSHAHR. STATEMENTS OF AFORESAID SIX PARTIES SHOW THAT THEY HAVE MADE PAYMENT TO EACH OTHER. ASSESSE E VIDE REPLY DATED 26.12.2011 ALSO STATED THAT M/S. S.M. STEELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. IS A DEBTOR AT SOMETIME AND CREDITOR ON THE OTHER T IMES OF THE ASSESSEES PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM. AO REACHED THE CON CLUSION THAT THE PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM PAY ORDERS ARE NOT BUSINESS R ECEIPTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER PROCEEDED TO RE JECT THE BOOKS ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 5 OF ACCOUNT U/S 145 (3) OF THE ACT. AO PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,17,50,124/- CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SIX DIF FERENT PARTIES IS NOT PROVED AS FOUR PARTIES HAVE CATEGORICALLY DENIE D TO HAVE ANY DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAINING TWO PAR TIES WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PAYMENT THROUGH PAY ORDERS HAV E ALSO FAILED TO PROVE ANY DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,17,50,140/-. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY ALLOWIN G THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,17,50,140/- CREDITED IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF PAY ORDERS FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES IS NOTHING BUT SHAM TRANSACTION ON ACCOUNT OF SOME BOGUS PURCHASES OUT OF WHICH MOST OF THE PAYMENTS WENT TO M/S. BARNALA STEELS INDUS. LTD.; THAT THE ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 6 ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ENTIRE PAYMENTS BY WAY OF PAY ORDERS HAVING NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF OTHER PERSONS THAN TH OSE OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES OF DELHI; THAT EVEN DURING THE RE MAND REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO TO PROD UCE REQUISITE LEDGER, JOURNAL, STOCK REGISTRATION, BILLS, BESIDES COPY OF FORM C OBTAINED WITH REGARD TO EX-UP SALES WHICH SHOWS THA T NO SALES HAVE BEEN EFFECTED RATHER PAPER WORK HAS BEEN COMPL ETED AND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED BY DELETING THE ADDITION BY SHIFTING THE ENTIRE BURDEN ON THE AO WHEREAS LD. CIT (A) WAS HAV ING CO- TERMINUS POWER WITH THAT OF THE AO TO CONDUCT THE E NQUIRY AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN CASE OF CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING AND MARKETING P. LTD . (2015) 375 ITR 373 (DELHI) . 7. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, IN ORDER TO REPEL TH E ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY SHO WN THE SALE AND PURCHASES AND THE AO HAS NEVER DOUBTED THE PURCHASE S, AS SUCH, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF BOGUS PURCHASES; THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ALL THE PURCHASE BILLS, VAT RETURNS FILED WITH THE VAT AUTHORITIES, BALANCE SHEET, AUDITED ACCOUNTS, ETC. WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO; THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE BILLS CONTAINING ALL THE DETAILS QUA SALES MADE OUT SIDE UP AND THAT ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 7 THE BILLS PRODUCED CONTAIN THE CST NUMBERS OF THE P ARTIES AND GR NUMBERS ARE ALSO THERE AND THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN OF FERED TO SHOW IN THE INCOME; THAT THE AO HAS ALSO NOT DOUBTED THE GP AND NP AND AS SUCH, THE PURCHASES OF RS.4.71 CRORES CANNOT BE BOGUS; THAT THE AO HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF DOUBTS AND SUSPICI ON; THAT MERE DENIAL BY CERTAIN PARTIES THAT THEY HAVE NO TRANSAC TION, DOES NOT MEAN THAT SALES ARE BOGUS; AND RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES (2002) 258 ITR 654 (GUJARAT) . LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 8. UNDISPUTEDLY, ENTIRE PAYMENT OF RS.4,17,50,140/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 24 DAYS I.E. 20.01.2009 TO 28.03.2009 BY WAY OF PAY ORDERS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT IN ONE DAY FROM A SINGLE PERSON THROUGH VARIOUS PAY ORDERS EACH AMOUNTING TO RS.49, 000/-. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133 (6) OF THE ACT TO SIX PARTIES OUT OF WHICH FOUR PARTIES HAVE D ENIED TO HAVE ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHE R TWO PARTIES CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PAYMENT THROUGH PAY ORDERS HAV E ALSO FAILED TO PROVE ANY DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO HAS ALSO NOT ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE FOUR PART IES WHO DENIED TO HAVE ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM. ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 8 9. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID UNDISPUTED FACT S, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN FOUR OF THE PARTIES, NAMELY, (I) M/S. STEEL GRACE INDIA (P) LTD., DELHI; (II) M/S. JACKSO N BUILDER (P) LTD., DELHI; (III) M/S. SARASWATI MET STONE INDIA P VT. LTD., DELHI; AND (IV) M/S. SAM INDIA BUILDWELL (P) LTD., DELHI F ROM WHOM HUGE PAYMENTS BY WAY OF PAY ORDERS ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEE N RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CURRENT ACCOUNT NO.11743 MAINTAINED WITH AMMCO BANK LTD., HAVE CATEGORICALLY DENIED TO HAVE ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE, THE BILLS, VOUCHERS, GR, THEIR BANK STATEMENTS, THEIR VAT RETURNS, ETC. COUL D NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT (A) WITHOUT CONDUCTING P ROPER ENQUIRY. 10. FURTHERMORE, WHEN WE EXAMINE THIS FACT IN THE L IGHT OF THE FACT THAT NEITHER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR AYS 2008-09 & 2009-10 ALONG WITH LEDGER, JOURNAL, S TOCK REGISTER, BILLS BESIDES COPY OF FORM C OBTAINED WITH REGARD TO EX-UP SALES, THE ENTIRE STORY PUT-FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES DOUBTFUL. 11. FURTHERMORE, INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO FRO M AMMCO BANK LTD. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 133 (6) ALSO PROVES THAT ALL THE PAY ORDERS ARE FILLED UP IN THE HANDWRITING OF TWO OR THREE PERSONS BUT NONE OF THEM WERE HAVING DELHI ADDRESS WHICH SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE REPR ESENTS CASH ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 9 CREDIT. FURTHERMORE, WHEN THIS FACT IS EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVED FACT THAT FOUR PARTIES HAVE CATEGORICALLY DE NIED TO HAVE ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND DEALING WITH REMAINING TWO PARTIES HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN PROVED, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY BASED UPON SMART PAPER WORK WHICH CANNOT BE BELIEVED. THE LD. CIT (A) WHO IS HAVING CO-TERMINUS POWER WIT H THAT OF THE AO SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A DISCREET ENQUIRY. EVEN, AO HAS NOT ISSUED THE SUMMONS TO THE SIX PARTIES COMPELLING TH EM TO PRODUCE ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO KNOW TH E VERACITY OF PLETHORA OF DOCUMENTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSE SSEE. 12. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN THE TOTALIT Y OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT SHOWS THAT IT IS NOT ONLY THE CASE OF BOGUS PURCHASES BUT, IN CASE, ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO PROVE ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE SIX PARTIES FROM WHOM HE ALLEG ED TO HAVE PAYMENTS OF CRORES OF RUPEES, IT WOULD BE A CASE OF PERJURY ALSO. NO DOUBT, PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS SHOWS THAT THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE BASED UPON DOCUMENTS IS IN ORDER BUT LD. C I (A) WITHOUT BRINGING THE TRUTH ON RECORD HAS NOT TRIED TO UNCOV ER THE FACTS SUPPRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE. 13. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT FOUR PARTIES FROM WH OM HUGE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CATEGOR ICALLY CLAIMED THAT THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS TRANSACTION WHATSOEVER W ITH THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 10 BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, NUMEROUS DOCUMENTS LIKE BILL S OF THE PARTIES HAVING CST NUMBER, GR NUMBER, VAT RETURNS, ETC. HAV E BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH MAKES THE E NTIRE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE SIX PARTIES TO FURTHER PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRA NSACTIONS. SO, IN THIS CASE, HALF-BAKED ENQUIRY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A) AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE REQUIRE THAT DETAILED ENQUIRY ON THE BASIS OF PLETHORA OF DOCUME NTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED TO BRING THE TRUTH ON RECORD. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 14. MOREOVER, STARTLING FACTS HAVE COME ON RECORD F ROM THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MOST OF THE PAYM ENTS HAVE ULTIMATELY WENT TO M/S. BARNALA STEEL INDUSTRIES LT D., MUZAFFARNAGAR, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT ROUND TRIPPING OF THE MONEY AND ALL THESE FACTS NEED TO BE THOROUGHLY ENQUIRED INTO. 15. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED UPON THE DECI SION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING AND MARKETING P. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS HELD AS UNDER :- ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 11 HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MIGHT HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT A PRO PER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. BUT THE COM MISSIONER (APPEALS), HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY, C OULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AN D DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE. IT WAS ALSO THE OBLIGATION OF THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS INDEED OF THE TRIBUNAL, TO HAVE ENSUR ED THAT EFFECTIVE INQUIRY WAS CARRIED OUT, PARTICULARLY IN THE FACE OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACCOUNT STATEME NTS REVEALED A UNIFORM PATTERN OF CASH DEPOSITS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS I N THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TRANSACTIONS IN Q UESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS ALSO THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED A T THE STAGE OF APPEALS, IF DEEMED PROPER BY WAY OF MAKING OR CAUSI NG TO BE MADE A FURTHER INQUIRY IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER U NDER SECTION 250(4). THIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS), COULD NOT BE APPROVED OR UPHELD. [MATTER REMANDED T O THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 16. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT (A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE, HENCE SET ASIDE AND CASE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE AO TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS N OT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. CONSEQUEN TLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 26 TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 TS ITA NO.5215/DEL./2012 12 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.