Sher Singh, Mandi V. ITO, Mandi

ITA 7/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68406 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMB ER ITA NO. 07/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 SHER SINGH, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S CAPITAL PHOTO STORES, WARD - MANDI, COLLEGE ROAD, (H.P.). MANDI (H.P.). PAN NO. ANHPS-3322D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VISHAL MOHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 14.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.08.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 27.11.2012 RELATING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147/ 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE RE-O PENING OF THE CASE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 READ WIT H SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. 2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDI TION OF RS.2,00,000/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.3,50,000/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE M/S H.P. COLOUR LAB, MANDI TREATING THE SAME TO BE INCO ME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 2 3. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST I NITIATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE ORIGIN AL ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ACIT VS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (S.C), WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING RECORDED REASONS FOR RE-OP ENING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147/1 48 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS UPHELD. THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS THUS, DISMISSED. 4. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING T O THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE H AD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,50,000/- AS HIS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIRM M/S H.P.COLOUR LAB, MANDI. THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.1,50,00 0/- WAS OUT OF MATURITY OF RECURRING DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WHICH WAS ACC EPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF THE BA LANCE SUM OF RS.2,00,000/- WAS CLAIMED TO BE OUT OF THE CAPITAL WITHDRAWN FROM THE SOLE PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS DECLARING THE INCOME UNDER SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT AND WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TREATED THE SAID INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 5. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ADDIT ION. SHRI VISHAL MOHAN APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI J.S.NAGAR APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE AND PUT FORWARD THEIR CONTENTIONS. 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE, ADMITTEDLY WAS CARRYING ON HIS SOLE PROPR IETORY BUSINESS FOR THE PAST MANY YEARS AND WAS DECLARING THE INCOME UN DER SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, A S PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME PLACED AT PAGE 14 OF THE PAPE R BOOK, THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.12,49,806/- ON WHIC H INCOME OF RS. 62,490/- WAS DECLARED. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECLA RING SIMILAR INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE A BOVESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ALREADY ENGAGE D IN THE SAID BUSINESS AND HAS BEEN SHOWING RECEIPTS FROM THE SAI D BUSINESS FROM YEAR TO YEAR, THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND OF R S. 2 LACS CANNOT BE DOUBTED. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THUS ALLOWE D. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 20 TH AUGUST,2013 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH