ACIT, New Delhi V. Ashwani Suri, New Delhi

ITA 987/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7802 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K UPADHYAY
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.987/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1987-88) ACIT, CIRCLE 12(1), VS. SHRI ASHWANI SURI, NEW DELHI. B-36, SAGAR APARTMENTS, 6, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.CBKPS1615G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. UPADHYAY, SR.(DR) ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)- XV, NEW DELHI DATED 15.12.2011, RELEVANT TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1987-88, WHEREIN FOLLOWING SOLITARY EFFECTIVE GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED : WHETHER LD.CIT(A) WAS CORRECT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,64,556 /- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. 2. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH ON 13.09.1990 AT HE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISE OF MR. ASHWANI SUR I, MD OF GANGA AUTOMOBILES LTD. AND ALSO ON THE RESIDENCE OF ONE DR. ASHWANI CHOPRA ALSO. 2.1 FROM THE PREMISES OF MR. ASHWANI CHOPRA CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED, WHICH SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CH ARGING ON MONEY ON MARUTI VEHICLES AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RS .13,64,556/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS ON MONEY. I.T.A. NO.987/DEL./2012 (A.Y. : 1997-88) 2 2 2.3 THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS TRIED TO CLAIM CERTAIN EXPENSES AGAINST THIS ON MONEY BUT THIS CLAIM WAS NOT ENTE RTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONSEQUENTLY AN ADDITION OF RS.13,64,556/- WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND SUBSTANTIVELY IN HAND OF GANGA AUTOMOBILES LTD. 3. THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE MATTER IN APPEAL AND CH ALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WHICH ADDITION WAS SUBSTANTIVELY MADE IN THE HANDS OF TH E GANGA AUTOMOBILES LTD. AND CIT(A) CONCLUDED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AS PER PARA.4.1 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER: 4.1 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT STATED THAT GANGA AUTOMOBILES HAD NOT FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SU BSTANTIVE ADDITION OF RS.13,64,556/- THEREFORE THIS SUM SHOULD NOT BE TAX ED IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT. WHEN THE FACTUAL REPORT ON THIS ASPECT WAS CALLED F OR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THIS FACT WAS CO NFIRMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 02.02.2010. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, I AM INCLINED TO ALLOW T HE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND, HENCE ADDITION OF RS.13,64,556/- IS DELETED. 4. AGAINST SUCH DELETION OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, DEPARTMENT HAS COME UP IN APPEAL. 5. DESPITE SENDING NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E SUFFICIENTLY IN ADVANCE, ASSESSEE DID NOT TURN UP AT THE TIME WHEN CASE WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED EX-PARTE QUA-THE-ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR. 6. LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO PLEAD FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORING THAT OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 7. AFTER HEARING LD.DR. AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIA L ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT DURING FIRST APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT GANGA AUTOMOBILES LTD. HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION OF RS.13,64 ,556/-. THEREFORE, THIS SUM SHOULD NOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN FACT UAL REPORT ON THIS ASPECT WAS CALLED FOR FORM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FIRST APPEAL PROCEEDI NGS, THIS FACT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 2.2.20 10. SO, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR I.T.A. NO.987/DEL./2012 (A.Y. : 1997-88) 3 3 SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH CAME TO BE DELETED BY THE CIT(A) WHOSE ACTION IS FOUND T O BE PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD IS UPHELD AND APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE BEING DE VOID OF ANY MERITS IS DISMISSED. 8. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE GETS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SOON AFTER THE CONC LUSION OF THE HEARING ON 26.04.2012. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (U.B.S. BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : APRIL 26, 2012 SKB COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXVIII, NEW DELHI. 5. CIT(ITAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT