The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar V. Gurinder Singh Sodhi, Jalandhar

ITA 68/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7983 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNJEET SINGH SYAL LD
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.68(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), JALANDHAR VS. GURINDER SINGH SODHI PROP. G. SODHI & ASSOCIATES,1 BOMBAY NAGAR, JALANDHAR PAN:AYCPS0431M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH. GUNJEET SINGH SYAL (LD. ADV.) DATE OF HEARING: 03.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.04.2018 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-2, JALANDHAR U/S 2 50(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) F OR ASST. YEAR:2006-07. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVEN UE DEPARTMENT. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.91,81,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SECURITY MONEY RECEIVED. ITA NO.68/ASR/2017 (A.Y.2006-07) ITO VS. GURINDER SI NGH SODHI, JALANDHAR 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT AO WAS ABLE TO FIND DISCREPAN CY IN TWO CASES ONLY, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE AO HAD SPECIFICAL LY HELD THAT HE WAS QUOTING THE INSTANCES AND THERE WERE MA NY SUCH DISCREPANCIES. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN IGNORIN G THE FINDING OF THE AO REGARDING WRONG ADDRESSES OF THE STUDENTS AND DENIAL OF A STUDENT REGARDING THE SECURITY GIVEN/RE FUNDED. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN IGNORIN G THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF REFUND OF SECURITIES TO 33 STUDENTS, AS PER DIRECTIONS OF HON 'BLE 1TAT. 5. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND PROVIDES TRAINING TO STUDE NTS UNDER THE CANADA LAW FOR GOING TO CANADA FOR WORK AND THE ASSESSEES DUTY TO SECURE JOBS FOR THE STUDENTS IN CANADA AND TO T RAIN THEM ACCORDING TO CANADIAN LAW SO THAT THEY WOULD BE ELIGIB LE TO GET CANADIAN VISA ON THE BASIS OF MANY SERVICES BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THIS PROCESS THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FEES ALONG WITH SECURITY AMOUNTS FROM THE STUDENTS, SO THAT, THEY COULD G O TO CANADA AND JOIN THE EMPLOYERS AS PER CANADIAN LAW. AF TER COMPLETION OF WHOLE PROCESS, THE SECURITY MONEY(S) WAS SUPPOSED TO BE REFUNDED BACK TO THE STUDENTS. THE DETAIL S OF THE SECURITY AMOUNTS REFUNDED TO 33 STUDENTS ALONG WITH MODE AND DATE OF PAYMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO.68/ASR/2017 (A.Y.2006-07) ITO VS. GURINDER SI NGH SODHI, JALANDHAR 3 PROCEEDINGS, THE STATEMENTS OF 5 PERSONS WERE ALSO RECORDE D BY THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIMS OF REFUNDS OF SECU RITY AS WELL AS COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS OF HDFC BANK OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS REFUNDED BACK TO EACH OF THE PERSONS HAS BEEN STATED AND MARKED WITH THE CORRESPONDING SERIAL NUMBER GIVEN TO THAT PERSON IN THE RECONCILIATIO N LIST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT IN SOME OF THE CASES, THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND FALSE. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHILE MENTIONING TWO INSTANCES OF DISCREPANCIES, OPINED TH AT THERE ARE NUMBER OF SUCH CASES WHERE DISCREPANCIES CAN BE FOUND AND THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LIST P ROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED TO BE CORRECT AND GENUIN E AND FINALLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,01,81,000/-. 4. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LA CS OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,01,81,000/- MADE BY THE AO, DELETED THE REST ADDITION OF RS. 91,81,1000/-. 5. FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A), THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEAL AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 91,81,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SECURITY MONEY RECEIVED BY HOLDIN G THAT THE AO WAS ABLE TO FIND DISCREPANCIES IN TWO CASES ONLY, WHEREAS THE AO SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT HE WAS QUOTING THE INSTANCE S AND THERE WERE MANY SUCH DISCREPANCIES. FURTHER THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ITA NO.68/ASR/2017 (A.Y.2006-07) ITO VS. GURINDER SI NGH SODHI, JALANDHAR 4 ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN IGNORING THE FINDING OF THE AO REGARDING THE WRONG ADDRESSES OF THE STUDENTS AND DENIAL OF STUDENTS REGARDING THE SECURITY GIVEN/REFUNDED, PARTICUL ARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF REFUND OF HIS SECURITY TO 33 STUDENTS. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS COPY OF TRANSACT IONS SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN HDFC BANK LTD., MOD EL TOWN MARKET, JALANDHAR AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE IS BASED ON THE LOGICAL AND PLAUSIBLE REASONING AS WELL AS MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD DURING THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, HENCE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTE RFERENCE FROM THIS COURT. 7. ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ARE INTERCONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, HAVE BEEN TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSL Y FOR ADJUDICATION. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND RELEVANT M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, LIST OF 33 STUDENTS, TO WHOM SECURITY MONEY HAVE CLAIMED TO BE REFUNDED, HAD BEEN PROVIDE D BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF WHICH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUOTED TWO INSTANCES OF DISCREPANCIES, HOWEVER, REJ ECTED THE ENTIRE LIST AND MADE THE ADDITION OF TOTAL AMOUN T OF RS.1,01,81,000/-, WHICH WAS PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ITA NO.68/ASR/2017 (A.Y.2006-07) ITO VS. GURINDER SI NGH SODHI, JALANDHAR 5 TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,00,000/- ONLY BY OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACT OF HAVING REFUNDED BACK TO SECURIT Y DEPOSIT OF RS.5,00,000/- EACH TO TWO PERSONS NAMELY SMT. RAJDEE P KAUR AND SMT. RAJWINDER KAUR. THE REST ADDITION OF RS.91,8 1,000/- WAS DELETED. IT IS CLEARLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT LIST CONTAINING THE NAMES OF 33 PERSONS WITH COMPLETE ADDRES SES AS WELL AS DETAILS OF AMOUNTS OF SECURITY RECEIVED FROM EACH OF THEM ON DIFFERENT DATES ALONG WITH DATE OF REFUND OF SECURI TY AND CHEQUE NOS. THROUGH WHICH THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN REFUNDED BACK, HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND OUT OF 33 STUDENTS, STATEMENT OF FIVE PERSONS HAVE ALSO BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE SAID CLAIMS OF REFUNDS OF SECURITY. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE BANK STATEMENT OF HDFC BANK, WHICH WAS CAL LED UPON BY THE AO, ALTHOUGH NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE , HOWEVER, UTILIZED FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. OUT OF 3 3 TRANSACTIONS/ENTRIES, 12 HAVE BEEN ENROUTED THROUGH A CCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND REMAINING HAVE BEEN ENROUTED THROUG H BEARER CHEQUES ONLY, HOWEVER, NAMES OF PAYEES HAVE BE EN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THEREIN. FROM THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SPECIFICALLY IMPUGNED HEREIN, IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE TH E FACT OF HAVING REFUNDED BACK THE SECURITY DEPOSITS TO 31 PERSO NS OUT OF TOTAL 33 PERSONS AND IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION OF 2 P ERSONS, FAILED TO FURNISH SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE AND, THEREFOR E, THE LD. ITA NO.68/ASR/2017 (A.Y.2006-07) ITO VS. GURINDER SI NGH SODHI, JALANDHAR 6 CIT(A) PARTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,00,000/- ONLY. ON THE AFORESAID CONSIDERATIONS AND OBSERVATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDER IMPUGNED HEREIN IS BASED UPON THE LOGICAL REASONING, WELL REASONS AND MATERIAL P LACED ON RECORD, SPECIFICALLY THE LIST OF 33 PERSONS, OUT OF WHICH 31 PERSONS HAVE RECEIVED THE SECURITY AMOUNTS, STATEMENT OF 5 PERSONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM OF REFUND OF SECURITY AND BANK STATEMENT OF HDFC BANK LTD. WHICH W AS SPECIFICALLY RELIED UPON BY THE AO WHILE MAKING ADDITI ON. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE/SUBMIT, ANY CIRCUMSTANCE/ADVERSE MATERIAL FOR MAKING THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE AS IMPROPER, PERVERSE AND/OR ILLOGICAL, HENCE , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT STANDS REJECTED . 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPA RTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.04.2018. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N. K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17.04.2018 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) GURINDER SINGH SODHI, JALANDHAR (2) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), JALANDHAR (3) THE CIT(A)-2, JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED. (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER