ACIT, New Delhi V. Smt. Nidhi Mehta, New Delhi

ITA 718/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74380 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM ITA NO. 718/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ACIT, CC 22, NEW DELHI VS. SMT. NIDHI MEHTA 3, EMPIRE ESTATE, MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD SULTANPUR, NEW DELHI PAN: AAJPM 4182 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:- SH.ALOKE PERIWAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY:- SH. KEYUR PATEL, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, NEW DE LHI DATED 11.12.2012 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF:- THE FACTS ARE BROUGHT OUT AT P ARAS 4.1 TO 4.3 OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)S ORDER, WH ICH IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE. 4.1. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE, THAT ASSESSEE IS PART OF THE ALCHEM GROUP ON WHOM, SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED ON 4.2.2010. DURING THE SEARCH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AND ON ONE PAGE NO.22 OF ANNE XURE A-3, WHICH WAS IN ASSESSEES OWN HAND WRITING FOLLOWING NOTINGS WERE THERE- PAGE 2 OF 5 27.7.2006 CASH IN HAND OP 38 CASH 25 BANK 63 4.2. WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE NOTING THE ASSESSEE E XPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER: THE SLIP CONTAINS DATE AS 27.7.2006. IT IS IN HAN D WRITING OF MRS.NIDHI MEHTA WHO IS LOOKING AFTER TWIN MULTIFLORA OPERATIONS AT KULLU. ON THE TOP THE NAME IS WRITTEN AS O.P.SH. O.P. HAPPENS TO BE DIRECTOR OF T WIN MULTIFLORA. THE CASH IN HAND AS ON THAT DATE OF TWIN MULTIFLORA IS RS.38,00 0 AND RS.25,000 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM GRAMIN BANK, AT KULLU, HIMACHAL. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION 38 AND 25 ARE WRITTEN ON THE SLIP OF THE PAPER CAN BE MADE TO PRESUME FIGURES IN LACS WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH REFERENCE ON SLIP OF PAP ER. THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRELATED THESE FROM RECORDS OF TWIN MULTIFLORA IN YOUR OFFICE ON LAST DATE OF HEARING. 4.3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT AGREE WI TH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FIGURES 38 AND 25 ARE TO B E READ AS 38,000 AND 25,000 AND THE SAME WAS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS A SELF THOUGHT STORY. IN ASSESSING OFFICERS VIEW THE FIGURES 38 AND 25 ARE TO BE READ AS RS.38 LACS AND RS.25 LACS RESPECTIVELY AND HE GIVE THE FO LLOWING FINDINGS IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN C ONSIDERED CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO ESCAPE FROM THE PRIMA FACIE O BSERVATION EASILY BE MADE ON EXAQMINATION OF; SEIZED MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AND CORRELATION SUBMITTED THAT THESE AMOUNTS ARE RS.38, 000 AND RS.25,000 WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED TO BE CASH OF TWIN MULTIFLO RA WHEREAS THERE IS NOTHING ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH MAY SUGGEST THE RELATI ON WITH SHRI OP OR TWIN MULTIFLORA. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME WITH A SELF THOUGHT STORY WITHOUT ANY REASONING AND EVIDENTIAL VALUE TO ESCAPE FROM T HE TAXATION LAWS. AS REGARDS, THE QUANTUM OF AMOUNTS WRITTEN ON THIS APG E, IT IS WORTHY TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WIFE OF SHRI RAMAN MEHTA, KEY PERSON AND PROMOTER OF M/S ALCHEM INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ITS ASSOCIATE CON CERNS. THE ALCHEM INTERNATIONAL LTD. IS A LEADING COMPANY IN THE FILE D OF MANUFACTURING OF MEDICINES AND HERBALS IN INDIA AND ALSO RENOWNED AT THE WORLD LEVEL. IT IS BYOND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WIFE OF SUCH A RENOWNED PERSON U TILIZES HER TIME IN WRITING CALCULATIONS OF MONEY IN THOUSANDS OF RUPEES I.E. S O CALLED MEAGER AMOUNT OF RS.38,000 OR 25,000 AS CONTENDED BY ASSESSEE IN HER REPLY. THE ASSESSEE HERSELF HAS TRIED TO CORRELATE THE MATTER WITH COMP ANIES WHICH SUGGEST THAT THE PAGE 3 OF 5 ASSESSEE IS ALSO ACTING AT ARMS LENGTH IN THE BUSI NESS OF RAMAN MEHTA IN THE FIELD OF MEDICINE AND HERBALS IN INDIA AS WELL AS I N THE WORLD. FROM SEIZED MATERIAL IT CAN EASILY BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS RECORDED THE AMOUNTS ARE IN LACS SUITED TO HER STATUS AND LAVISHING STAN DARD OF LIVING. THIS HANDWRITING SHOULD EITHER BE IN CRORES OF RUPEES OR IN LACS OF RUPEES. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF JUSTICE, THE SAME IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN LACS OF RUPEES. 3. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.63,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. 2. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND IS NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI SLOKE PERIWAL, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI KEYUR PATEL, SR.D.R. ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 5. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 6. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR ADJUDICATION IS W HETHER THE SEIZED PAPER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, I.E. PAGE NO.22 ON ANNEXURE A-3 REFERS TO THOUSANDS OR LAKHS OF RUPEES. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT THE FIGURES REFER TO RS.38,000/- AND RS.25,000/- AND WHEREAS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON THE OTHER HAND HELD THE FIGURES TO BE RS.38,00,000 AND 25,00, 000 RESPECTIVELY, AND MADE AN ADDITION. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN PAGE 4 OF 5 AN AMOUNT OF RS.25,000/- THROUGH CHEQUE NO.304791 O N 27.7.2006 FROM THE HIMACHAL GRAMEEN BANK A/C OF M/S TWIN MULTIFLORA LTD, WITH WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED AND LOOKS AFTER THE AFFAIRS AND HELD THAT THE FIGURE 25 IS TO BE READ AS RS.25,000/-. HE ALSO HE LD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO MATERIAL TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE FI GURE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS RS.25 LAKHS. ON GOING THROUGH PARA 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE S AME. LD.DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY. HENCE WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST MARCH, 2014. SD SD/- (A.T.VARKEY) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 21 ST MARCH,2014 *MANGA PAGE 5 OF 5 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR