The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana V. Sh.Sarup Chand Singhla, Bathinda

ITA 742/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6958 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 742/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 THE DY. CIT VS. SH. SARUP CHAND SINGLA CENTRAL CIRCLE-III 17134, ST. NO. 5, LUDHIANA AGGARWAL COLONY,BATHINDA PAN NO. ABAPC2338L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. SUDHIR SEHGAL DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 06/07/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/08/2017 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA DT. 14/03/2016. 2. IN THIS APPEAL REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. (I) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONOF RS. 40,00,000/-. (II) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DOCUMENT AND THE FURTHER CONFIRMATION FROM SH. RAM SEVA SAMITI, BATHINDA DATED 07/03/2013 IS NOT FROM AN AUTHORIZED / PRINCI PAL OFFICER OF THE SAMITI. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 3. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BE SET- ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED ON MERITS. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE ON 18/02/2011. 4. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 40,00,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS NO. 66 ANNEXURE-A. 2 5. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE G ROUND THAT AO HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IN DICATES THAT IT WAS AN ESTIMATE TITLED APPROX BUDGET. ALL THE FIGURES AR E IN ROUND NUMBERS AS MULTIPLE OF 10 OR 5 INCLUDING THE EXPENSES, VILLAGES, NUMBER OF PERSONS AND EXPENSE PER PERSON ETC. THIS INDICATES TOWARDS THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE. NO DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FOUND DURING SEAR CH WHICH MAY SUBSTANTIATE THE FACTS THAT THE PROPOSED VISIT OF G URU JI IN FACT TOOK PLACE AND THAT ANY EXPENDITURE WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED. THERE I S NOTHING ON RECORD AS TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS, IF ANY, WERE MADE AND THE MODE, DATE ETC. OF THE EXPENDITURE. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THA T THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND FOUND NOT SUSTAINABLE. 6. BEFORE US THE LD. DR SUPPORTED ON THE ORDER OF T HE AO AND ARGUED THAT THE CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM SHRI. RAM SEWA SAMIT I, BATHINDA DT. 07/03/2013 IS ONLY AND AFTER THOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. LD. AR ARGUED THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS A ESTIMATE O F VISIT OF SOME RELIGIOUS GURUS TO A FUNCTION AND THE SAME WAS BEING ORGANIZ ED BY SOME ORGANIZATION BUT DID NOT MATERIALIZE. 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US WHICH DEPICTS AS UNDER: GURUJIS VISIT (DAY TIME) (APPROX BUDGET) 1. PUBLICITY DIRECT / INDIRECT = 10 LACS (COVERING 200 VILLAGES, CITY NEARBY TOWNS) (FLEX HOARDING, POSTERS, ELECTRONIC MEDIA, PRESS ME DIA, RADIO, MOBILE VANS, VILLAGE TALKS) 2. VENUE ARRANGEMENTS = 10 LACS (FLOWER DECORATION, STAGE, CHAIRS, BARRICADING, PRI VATE SECURITY, TRANSPORT, TENT, WATER, SOUND, 1. CARDS MEMBERS TO VIPS, VENUE ELECTRICITY, GENERATOR) 3. REFRESHMENT= FOR A GATHERING OF 50000 PEOPLE @ RS. 30/- PER PERSON= 15 LACS 4. MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES = 5 LACS AND ALSO THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE SHRI RAM SEWA SAMI TI. FROM THE READING OF THE DOCUMENTS IT COULD BE DECIPHERED THAT IT IS ONLY A BUDGETING PAPER AND NO 3 EXPENDITURE COULD ATTRIBUTED TO THIS DOCUMENT. FURT HER THERE WERE NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF ANY TO PROVE THAT THIS EX PENDITURE HAS BEEN ALREADY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE WE DECLINE TO INTER FERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 30/08/2017 IN THE OPEN C OURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE