CHANCHAL LAKHI, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 998/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5527 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Loose papers

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 998/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 SMT. CHANCHAL LAKHI A-JA-14, JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 6 (1) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AALPL 3465 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.C. PARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA, JCIT- DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 30/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 /01/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 29-01-2013 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04 WHEREIN THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,76,297/- MADE BY THE AO BY A PPLYING GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 19.06% ON THE ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED SA LES OF RS. 56,46,889/- ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN PAGES OF ANNEXU RE A-31. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 18-08-2005, DU RING THE COURSE ITA NO. 998/JP/2013 SMT. CHANCHAL LAKHI VS. ITO, W ARD- 6(1), JAIPUR . 2 THEREOF, BUNCH OF LOOSE PAPERS MARKED AS ANNNEXURE A-31 WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. ASSESSEE STRAIGHTLY CONTENDED THAT T HEY WERE DUMB PAPERS WHEREAS THE AO HELD THAT LOOSE PAPERS REPRES ENTED UNACCOUNTED SALES OF THE ASSESSEE AGGREGATING TO RS. 56,46,889/ -. ON THIS UNACCOUNTED SALES, GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 19.06% AS DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN HIS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS APPLIED AND UNDISCLOSE D INCOME FROM UNACCOUNTED SALES WAS ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT. 2.2 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL WHERE IT WAS REITERATED THAT THE IMPOUNDED PAPERS OF ANNNEXURE A -31 WERE DEAF AND DUMB PAPERS MAINTAINED BY STAFF AND THE INSCRIPTION MENTIONED THEREIN DID NOT RELATE TO PURCHASE AND SALES. THE PAPER WIS E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGES 3 AND 4 ALONG WITH HIS CATEGORICAL FINDINGS AT PAGE 5 AND 6 REJECTING EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE IMPOUNDED PAPERS OF ANNNEX URE A-31 PAPERS ARE NOT DEAF AND DUMB DOCUMENTS AND THEY REPRESENTE D UNACCOUNTED SALES OF THE ASSESSEE; THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS UP HELD. 2.3 AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFO RE ITAT; LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND REITERAT ED THE ARGUMENTS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TABULATING THE SAME EXPL ANATION FOR IMPOUNDED PAPERS AS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS CONTENDED THAT ITA NO. 998/JP/2013 SMT. CHANCHAL LAKHI VS. ITO, W ARD- 6(1), JAIPUR . 3 THERE ARE VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN RESPECT OF NATUR E OF TRANSACTION, QUANTITY AND RATE OF SEMIPRECIOUS STONES ADOPTED FO R QUANTIFYING UNACCOUNTED SALES. THE PAPERS IN QUESTION BEING DEA F AND DUMB DOCUMENTS, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT A REQUEST WAS MADE TO AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT CONSEQUENT TO SU RVEY OPERATIONS ON ALL THE GROUP CONCERNS, INCOME IN RESPECT OF THESE IMPO UNDED DOCUMENTS MAY BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE GROUP CONCERN M/S. BIHARIL LAL HOLA RAM AS THE TRANSACTIONS BELONGED TO THAT CONCERN. 2.4 THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY CONTEND S THAT WHEN THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF TH E ASSESSEE AND LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND THEN IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EX PLAIN THE MEANING OF INSCRIPTIONS OF LOOSE PAPERS. IT IS WELL SETTLED PR OPOSITION OF TAX JURISPRUDENCE THAT FACTS ABOUT THE ASSESSEE'S BUSIN ESS AND LOOSE PAPERS FOUND IN ITS PREMISES ARE WITHIN EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDG E OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH CANNOT BE SHIFTED ON THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSE SSEE EXCEPT BALD ASSERTIONS THAT IMPOUNDED PAPERS WERE DEAF AND DUMB DOCUMENTS DID NOT PRODUCE ANY STAFF MEMBERS, THIRD PARTIES OR SUPPORT IVE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT IMPOUNDED PAPERS WERE DEAF AND DUMB PAPERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCHARGE OF BURDEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO IS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE TO ESTIMATE THE TRANSACTION AS INCOME FROM T HE IMPOUNDED ITA NO. 998/JP/2013 SMT. CHANCHAL LAKHI VS. ITO, W ARD- 6(1), JAIPUR . 4 DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CORRO BORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ASSERTIONS TO DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DE AFNESS OR DUMBNESS OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVID ENCE IN THIS BEHALF, THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE AO IS BASED ON REASONABLE QUANTIFICATION AND DETAILED WORKING AND CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. BESIDE S THE LD. CIT(A) BY CATEGORICAL FINDING HAS REBUTTED THE BALD ASSERTION S OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE DEAFNESS OR DUMBNESS OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS ; SAME ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DESERVE TO BE UPHELD. 2.5 APROPOS ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THIS INCOME IS CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE GROUP CONCERN M/S. BIHARI LAL HOLA RAM , LD DR CONTENDS THAT NO EVIDENCE IS ADDUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) O R EVEN THE ITAT TO INDICATE THAT INCOME QUA THESE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACT IONS HAVE BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF M/S. BIHARI LAL HOLA RAM. BESIDES, NO SUCH GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) OR BEFORE ITAT IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL IN THIS BEHALF. EXCEPT MAKING UN SUBSTANTIATED PLEAS IN THIS BEHALF NO OTHER DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITT ED, THEREFORE, IT IS A FUTILE ATTEMPT TO MISDIRECT THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEHALF. ITA NO. 998/JP/2013 SMT. CHANCHAL LAKHI VS. ITO, W ARD- 6(1), JAIPUR . 5 2.6 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION S OF THE LD. DR AS THE IMPUGNED LOOSE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN UNDISPUTEDLY FOU ND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PAPERS BEING DEAF AND DUMB DOCUMENTS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATION AS INDICATED BY LD. DR AMOUNTS ONLY TO VAGUE ASSERTIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) BY CATEGORICAL OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS RECORDED IN HIS ORDER HAS DESCRIBED ABOUT THE NATURE OF IMPOUNDED BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF UNACCOU NTED TRANSACTIONS. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM IN THIS BEHALF IS NOT TENABLE. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT FA CTS ABOUT BUSINESS AND IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS RECOVERED FROM ITS PREMISES ARE WITHIN EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. ANY CLAIM ABOUT THE DEAF NESS AND DUMBNESS OF THE DOCUMENTS IS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY PROPER AND COGENT MATERIAL FOR DISCHARGING DUE ONUS. IN THIS CASE, NO SUCH EVIDENC E HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND THE DUE ONUS HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASS ESSEE. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TAXING AUTHORITI ES HAVE NO CHOICE EXCEPT TO ESTIMATE THE TURNOVER AND INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT FOUND TO BE ARBITRARY. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ESTIMAT E AS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS UPHELD. ITA NO. 998/JP/2013 SMT. CHANCHAL LAKHI VS. ITO, W ARD- 6(1), JAIPUR . 6 2.7 APROPOS ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION ABOUT THE INCLUSI ON OF THE TURNOVER AND INCOME IN QUESTION IN THE HANDS OF M/S. BIHARI LAL HOLA RAM IS NEITHER TAKEN BY WAY OF GROUND EITHER BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) OR BEFORE THE ITAT. ON A QUERY BY BENCH ALSO, THE LD. AR OF THE A SSESSEE CONCEDED THAT THERE IS NO PAPER IN HIS POSSESSION TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM. IN VIEW THEREOF, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 /0 1/2016. SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (R.P.TOLANI) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22 /01/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. CHANCHAL LAKHI, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 6 (1), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 998/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR