M/s. General Copy House, Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 25/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0474 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RIS GILL
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGR A WAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (SS) A NO . 25/DEL/2013 BLOCK PERIOD: 01/04/1996 TO 06/03/2003 GENERAL COPY HOUSE, VS. ACIT, 981/4, CHA WRI BAZAR, CIRCLE 29(1), DELHI. NEW DELHI. AAAFG2439 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. AJAY WADHWA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. RIS GILL, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING: 16/12/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26 /12/2014 O RDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THE AS S ESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/09/2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - X X V, NEW DELHI FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1996 TO 06/03/2003 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1 . TH AT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 9.9.2013 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 2(I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,18,602/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 3,68,602/ - MADE ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RECOVERED FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S GIAN CHAND RAMJI DAS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 6.2.2003. 2(II)THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAVING FURNISHED SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF 8 ENTRIES INVOLVING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,46,048/ - , THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED RELIEF IN RESPECT OF 8 ENTRIES INSTEAD OF ALLOWING RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ONLY ONE ENTRY INVOLVING RELIEF OF RS. 50,000/ - . 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, DELETE, SUBSTITUTE ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. IT(SS)A NO. 25/D/2013 M/S GENERAL COPY HOUSE 2 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS OF A FIRM NAMED M/S GIAN CHAND RAMJI DAS , I T WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN TH E ASSESSEE AND M/S GIAN CHAND RAMJI DAS. AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME IT IS FOUND THAT THERE WERE SOME TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO CASH PAYMENT AND CASH RECEIPTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, REASONS WERE RECORDED AND PROCEEDING U/S 158BC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) WERE INITIATED. THE NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 30/10/2003. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 09/12/2003 DECLARING NIL UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE AO ISSUED DETAILS QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 25/10/2004. IN RESPONSE TO THIS ASSESSEE FILED REPLIES ON VARIOUS DATES AND ALSO PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AO EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS PERT AINING TO THE ASSESSEE CEASED FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S GIAN CHAND RAMJI DAS REVEALS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FIRM NAMED AS M/S AAA EXPORTS AND M/S ABC EXPORTS, WHEREIN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABBREVIATED A S GCH AND THE THREE DECIMALS PLACED HAVE BEEN TREATED TO CODE THE FIGURES. FOR INSTANCE, FIGURE OF THOUSAND HAS BEEN CODED AS 1.000. THIS HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF SOME OF THE FIGURES FROM THESE DOCUMENTS ARE ACTUALLY FIND MENTIONED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS REPRODUCED THOSE TRANSACTIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 2 AND HOLD THAT THESE RECEIPTS ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF BLOC K ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 17/10/2005 TO EXPLAIN WITH EVIDENCE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THESE TRANSACTIONS. IN RESPONSE TO THIS THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY DATED 20/10/2005, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE COMPANY LIKE AAA EXPORTS AND ABC IT(SS)A NO. 25/D/2013 M/S GENERAL COPY HOUSE 3 EXPORTS ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENCLOSED A LETTER FROM CHANDRA PRAKASH KALUCHA PARTNER OF M/S GIAN CHAND RAMJI DAS. IN THIS LETTER SH. CHANDRA PRAKASH STATED THAT HE HIMSELF, HIS CHILDREN AND HIS EMPLO YEES FOR LEARNING SAKE AND CONVENIENCE WORK MAKING ENTRIES ON THE COMPUTERS. FOR MAKING ANY ENTRIES, FIRST OF ALL ANY NAME OF THE COMPANY IS TO BE ENTERED IN THE COMPUTER. THESE ENTRIES HAVE NO MEANING FOR ACCOUNTANCY AND THE ENTRIES WRITTEN AS AAA EXPOR TS & ABC EXPORT ETC. ARE IMAGINARY. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE REPLY GIVE N BY THE ASSESSEE IS GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE AND A LETTER FROM SH. CHANDRA PRAKASH FINISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DEVOID OF LOGICAL REASONING HAD THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE ABBREVIATED NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S AAA EXPORTS & M/S ABC EXPORTS ETC. BE IMAGINARY, NONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE FOUND PLACE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE A SSESSES. FOR INSTANCE, THE ENTRIES RECORDED AT PAGE 1 OF THE ANNEXURE B IN BOOKS OF M/S AAA EXPORTS ARE CLEARLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE S MERELY CONTENTS OF PAGE NO. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 & SO ON ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. LASTLY HE CONCLUDED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED RECEIPTS ARE OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE ADDED THE SAME U/S 69A OF THE ACT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 368, 602/ - OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1/04/1996 TO 06/03/2003 AND HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC/ 158BD OF THE I.T. ACT ON 31/10/2005. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/10/2005 THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/09/2013 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MAINLY UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 318602/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 368602/ - AND HIS GIVEN THE RELIEF OF RS. 50,000/ - . IT(SS)A NO. 25/D/2013 M/S GENERAL COPY HOUSE 4 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE ILLEGAL ORDER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE RECORD OF THE CASE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE FILE. HE STATED THAT ON EARLIER OCCASIONS THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THEM BUT IN APPEAL THE ITAT HAS REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE CIT(A) AND DIRECTED HIM TO PASS AN ORDER AFTER GIVING ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUANL THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN A ROUTINE MANNER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS WRITTEN SUBMIS SION DATED 10/04/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) - XXV, SUBMISSION DATED 08/02/2006 FILED BEFORE CIT(A) - XIII, SU BMISSION FILED BEFORE CIT(A) - XIII AND ITAT ORDER DATED 13/02/2013. HE STATED THAT IN THE AFORESAID WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED EACH AND EVERY PAPER SEIZED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY AND NOTHING HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT AS ALLEG ED IN THE SEIZED PAPER S . HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ACCEPTED BY CANCELLING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND STATED THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THAT THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS A DMITTED THAT THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ARE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE REVENUE IT(SS)A NO. 25/D/2013 M/S GENERAL COPY HOUSE 5 AUTHORITY. HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE BOTH PARTIES A ND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US SPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONG WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IN THE SEARCH 56 PAPERS WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S GIAN CHAND RAMJI DAS AND 33 PAPERS ARE LINKED TO THE GENERAL COPY HOUSE SENT TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. ON EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF THE COMPANIES M/S AAA EXPORTS & M/S ABC EXPORTS ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A LETTER FROM MR. CHANDRA PRAKASH PARTNER OF M/S GIAN CHAND RAMJI DAS IN WHICH HE HAS STATED THAT HE HAS MADE THESE ENTRIES FOR HIS LEA RNING AND ALSO TOLD THAT THESE ENTRIES ARE FOR HIS CONVENIENCE SAKE AND HAS NO CONCERNED WITH ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITY THAT SH. CHANDRA PRAKASH IS HANDLING THEIR EXPORT OF THEIR PAPER AND BOAR D BUSINESS AND IS ALSO THEIR ATTORNEY WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, SADAR BRANCH. THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED THAT THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED EVEN A SINGLE PIECE FROM HIM. 6 . AFTER GOING THROUGH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE LD. FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE SHAPE OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MENTIONED ABOVE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED ABOUT ALL 33 PAPERS ALLEGEDLY RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ESTABLISHED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED P APERS BUT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES ALSO. 7 . KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,18,602/ - WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND CONTRARY TO THE IT(SS)A NO. 25/D/2013 M/S GENERAL COPY HOUSE 6 EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,18,602/ - UPHELD BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS DELETED BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 - 12 - 2014. SD/ - SD/ - ( G.D. AGR A WAL ) ( H.S. SIDHU ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR IT(SS)A NO. 25/D/2013 M/S GENERAL COPY HOUSE 7 IT(SS)A NO. 25/D/2013 M/S GENERAL COPY HOUSE 8