Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87829 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
31-03-2015
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
24-03-2015
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
13-11-2014
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 820/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 KAILASH CHAND TRIVEDI 65/32, MOTI MAHAL KANPUR V . DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 KANPUR T AN /PAN : ACCPT8154G (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI. RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: DR. ANAND KUMAR AGARWAL, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 24 03 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 0 3 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,67,369/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT AND RS.1,30,105/- AS GROSS PROFIT IN 'FLOWER BUSINESS' WHICH BUSINESS DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE BUT BELONG S TO ONE SHRI PRIYA DARSHAN AGNIHOTRI WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE EVIDENCES FILED BOTH BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND BEFORE HIM. THE ADDITION BEING BAD IN LAW BE DELETED. 2. BECAUSE ON A PROPER CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS THE CONTENTS OF THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS AND :-2-: HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,67,369 /- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND RS.1,30,105/- AS GROSS P ROFIT IN FLOWER BUSINESS, WHICH ADDITIONS BE DELETED. 3. BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPREC IATE THE FACT THAT NEITHER THE LOOSE PAPERS BK1, BK2, BK3 AN D BK4 OF LP1 FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ON 17.09.2008 FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ASSESSEE BEING ANYWHERE INVOLVED IN THE FLOWER BUSI NESS, THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE ALL CONTRARY TO FACTS, BAD IN LA W AND BE DELETED. 4. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS IN A VERY CRYPTIC MANNER WIT HOUT LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E (OVERLOOKING THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE AFFIDAVIT) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE, WHICH ORD ER OF CIT(A) IS NOT ONLY ARBITRARY, BUT IS ALSO AGAINST THE PRIN CIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ADDITION OF RS.8,67,369/- AND RS.1,30, 105/- BE DELETED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED UPON THE ASSESSEE, CERTAIN PAPERS WERE FOUND, WITH REGARD TO WHICH IT WAS DEPOSED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT BELONG TO SHRI. PRI YA DARSHAN AGRIHOTRI WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THE FLOWER BUSINESS. THE EXPLANATIO NS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE SEIZED MATERIAL WERE NO T EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRY FROM SHRI. PRIYA DARSHAN AGRIHOTRI AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE AD DITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, A GAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH HIM. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE SU BMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELEVANT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER, BUT IT :-3-: WAS NOT EXAMINED BY HIM, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPLANATIONS AND MATERIALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 4. THE LD. D.R. HAS SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE AD DITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL, WHICH WAS STATED TO BE BELONGING TO SHRI. PRIYA DARSHAN AGRIHOTRI. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SEIZED MAT ERIAL, BUT IT WAS NEITHER EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE LD. CIT(A ). WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AN D RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH BY MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRY FROM SHRI. PRIYA DARSHAN AGRIHOTRI AND AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/ - SD/ - [ A. K. GAROD IA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 ST MARCH, 2015 JJ:2403 :-4-: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
