Sri Raghaw Nandan Prasad, V. DCIT,

ITA 81/RAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85466 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K PODDAR; M K CHOUDHARY S LD
• Assessee Lawyers: CHOUDHARY ORANGJCIT LD
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT , AND HON'BLE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 81 /RAN/2014 A.Y 20 10 - 11 S HRI RAGHA W NANDAN P RASAD VS. DY. CIT, C.C - 1, RANCHI PAN: A DBPP8027E [ APPELLANT ] [ RESPONDENT ] FOR THE RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE : S/SHRI S.K PODDAR & M.K.CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATES, LD.AR FOR THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT : SHRI CHOUDHARY ORANG,JCIT, LD.DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 3 - 12 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 0 3 - 12 - 2014 ORDER SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 23 - 01 - 2014 PASSED BY THE L D.CIT(A), JAMSHEDPUR AND IT RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 . 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 0 , 0 00/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A G OVERNMENT S ERVANT AND SERVED AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MINES) (HQRS) , DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY , GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND . A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 31 - 10 - 2009 AT HIS RESIDENCE AND CONSEQ UENT THERETO THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 ITA NO . 81/RAN/2014 SRI RAGHAW NANDAN PRASAD 4. THE DEPARTMENT ALSO CONDUCTED SURVEY OPERATION U/S. 133A OF THE ACT IN THE PREMISES OF M/S. BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL, RANCHI ON 03 - 03 - 2010 , A BUNCH OF LOOSE SHEET S MARKED AS BSR - 05 WAS IMPOUNDED . PAGE 45 [BSR - 05] OF THE LOOSE SHEETS DISCLOSED THAT A PAYMENT OF RS.50,000/ - WAS MADE TO A PERSON NAMED SH. R.N.PRASAD JI FOR CHATRUBURU MINES. IN FACT, T HE SAID DOCUMENT CONTAIN ED THE NAMES OF FOLLOWING THREE PERSONS : - A . SHRI B.B SINGH RS. 2 ,00,000/ - B. SHRI R.N PRASAD RS. 50,000/ - C. SHRI S. UPDHAYA RS. 50,000/ - FOR CHATURBURU MINES, 180HEC __________ TOTAL RS.3,00,000/ - THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/ - WAS FOUND IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF A PERSON NAMED S UPDHAY . 5 THE AO PRESUMED THAT THE NAME OF SHRI R.N PRASAD MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE DOCUMENT WAS THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DENIED ANY CONNECTION WITH THE SAID COMPANY , YET THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE A MOUNT OF RS. 50,000/ - WAS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION . HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICE D THAT THE DOCUMENT APPEARS TO BE A LEDGER ACCOUNT OF A PERSON NAMED SHRI S.UPDHAYA. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY DATE. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONDUCT ANY EN QUIRY WITH REGARD TO THIS DOCUMENT WITH SHRI S. UPDHAYA OR WITH M/S BHUSHAN POWSER & STEEL . THE LD.AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY PRESUMED THAT THE NAME OF R.N. PRASAD TO BE THE ASSESSEE HEREIN AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE SAID VIEW. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING , THE BENCH ASKED THE LD.DR AS TO WHETHER ANY ADDITION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF SHRI B.B. SINGH , WHOSE NAME ALSO FINDS PLACE IN THE ABOVE SAID IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT. THE LD.DR , AFTER VERIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT RECO RD OF SHRI B.B.SINGH , SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF SHRI B.B. SINGH . 3 ITA NO . 81/RAN/2014 SRI RAGHAW NANDAN PRASAD HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD CARRIED OUT AN ENQUIRY WITH M/S BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL IN RESPECT OF THIS DOCUMENT WHILE COMPLETI N G THE ASSESSMENT OF SHRI B.B SINGH AND THE Y HAVE DENIED THE TRANSACTION THEREIN. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SHRI B.B. SINGH DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE SAID IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT . 7. THUS, WE NOTICE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VI EW ABOUT THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT THAT THE SAME IS NOT RELIABLE. HENCE, I N OUR VIEW , THE SAID DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD ALSO BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ASSESSING THE AMOUNT OF R S.50,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AN IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT, WHOSE CONTENTS WERE ACCEPTED AS UNRELIABLE BY THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THIS ADDITION. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 0 3 - 12 - 2014 SD/ - SD/ - [ H.L. KARWA ] [ B.R. BASKARAN ] PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 0 3 - 12 - 2014 PLACE : RANCHI PP, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT : 2 THE RESPONDENT: 3. .THE CIT, 4.THE CIT(A), 5.DR, ITAT CIRCUIT BENCH, RANC HI 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR 4 ITA NO . 81/RAN/2014 SRI RAGHAW NANDAN PRASAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ............. 03 - 12= - 2014 . ORDER MODIFIED BY THE MEMBER IN HIS LAPTOP ........ DICTATION TAKEN .............. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PL ACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ........................OTHER MEMBER ............................... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. ..................... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.................................. 0 3 - 12 - 2014 ................................................... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S ................ 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK ............ ........................... 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ......................................... 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................................................ ................................................. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..............................................................