The DCITPanchmahal Circle, Godhra V. Dr.Harshad P.Zaveri, Dahod

ITSSA 1/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8109 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA

Judgement Text

, , , , C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, C BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ # ## #. .. .% $% % $% % $% % $%, , , , &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( & ' & ' & ' & ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A NO.01/AHD/2010 [BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.89 TO 20.1.2000] DCIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE GODHRA. /VS. DR. HARSHAD P. ZAVERI OPP: ZALVIHAR SOCIETY STATION ROAD DIST. DAHOD. PAN : AABCP 2643 Q ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ( . / &/ REVENUE BY : SHRI V.VERMA 12 . / &/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N.DIVETIA 3 . 24'/ DATE OF HEARING : 11 TH JUNE, 2012 5%6 . 24'/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6-7-2012 &7 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDA BAD DATED 18.09.2009 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 20.1.20 00. 2. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1(I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,80 ,000/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.6,00,00/- MADE U/S.69C OF THE ACT. 1(II) THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT WHEN THE EVIDENCES SEIZED DURING SEARCH U/S.132 INDICATED THE TRUE INV ESTMENT, THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF SAID EVIDENCES. IT(SS)A NO.01/AHD/2010 -2- 3. THE LEARNED CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS THE SE COND ROUND OF THE LITIGATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE LITIGATION, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 8.9.2006 IN IT(SS)A.NO.37/AHD/2003 HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF THE AO FOR A FRESH DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWIN G THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE AO HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ASSESSMENT ORDER COMPLYING WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER DATED 8.9.2006. HE HAS RELIE D ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND HAS REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE WAS N O FORCE OR PRESSURE ON THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN THE ADMISSION DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH AND THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.6 LAKHS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE VOLUNTARILY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF PRESSURE O N THE ASSESSEE CAME AFTER TWO YEARS OF THE SEARCH HAVING TAKEN PLACE. HE REFERRED TO PAGE NO.103 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS A PHOTO-COPY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN THAT IT HAS MADE I NVESTMENT OF RS.8 LAKHS OUT OF BOOKS IN PROPERTY AT AHMEDABAD. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, AS APPEARING AT PAGE N O.103 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE TO WRITE ON THE SHEET OF PAPER AND SAME WAS NEVER VOLUNTARY. HE HAS RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE HAVE PERUSED THE SEIZED COPI ES OF THE PAPER AS APPEARING AT PAGE NO.103 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BE FORE US. WE FIND THAT THE SEIZED PAPER IS UNSIGNED. THE FIGURE OF RS.4 L AKHS MENTIONED WAS AS PER BOOKS AND SECOND FIGURE MENTIONED IS OF RS.8 LA KHS AND IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN THAT THE SAME IS INVESTMENT MADE OUT OF BOO KS. A MERE PERUSAL OF IT(SS)A NO.01/AHD/2010 -3- THE SEIZED PAPER AS APPEARING AT PAGE NO.103 OF THE COMPILATION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, ONE CONCLUSION COMES CLEARLY THAT I T WAS WRITTEN AT THE DIRECTION OF SOMEONE AND WAS NOT A NATURAL WAY OF R ECORDING ANY ENTRY. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SOME INVESTMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT WAS THAT IT WAS IM POSSIBLE FOR THE LAYMAN OR A PERSON WITH MEDICAL BACK-GROUND TO WRIT E SUCH LANGUAGE AND THAT SUCH PAPER WAS CREATED BY THE LEARNED AO ITSEL F DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS IN THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TAKEN JANTRI VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS EASILY AVAILABLE A ND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.20,000/- IN SECOND ROUND AND THE BALANCE ADDITION WAS DELETED. THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS FIXED Y EARWISE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND IS RELEVANT CONSIDERATIO N TO VALUE THE PROPERTY AS ON VALUATION DATE. THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER ON THE ISSUE AND HAS ADOPTED JANTRI VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, AND THERE BEING NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, WE CONFIRM THE SAME AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( #.% $% /A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) &' ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD