I.T.O.- 2(3), Gwalior V. Sh. Ram Swaoop Gupta, Gwalior

ITSSA 3/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8325 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Question of law; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 131; 69; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS) A. NO. 03/& 04/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2001-02 & 2002-03 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI RAM SWAROOP GUPTA, 2(3), GWALIOR. PROP. R.S. GUPTA & CO. ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS, 8, SHOPPING COMPLEX, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, GWALIOR. (PAN : ABEPG 5513 B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAHESH AGARWAL, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 28.09.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 07.07.2010 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002- 03 ON THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,00,000/- AND RS.23,00,000/- FOR A.Y. 2001-02 & 2002-03 RESPE CTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN VATSAL SHIKSHA SAMITI, GWA LIOR. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT AS NULL AND VOID FOR IT(SS)A NO.03 &0 4/AGRA/2010 2 A.Y. 2001-02 & 2002-03 WHILE MISINTERPRETING THE SE CTION 153C/153A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING AND CONTRADICTING VIEWS ON THE NEXUS OF THE APPELLANT WITH SHRI SUNIL JAIN / SMT. SEEMA JAIN ON WHOSE PREMISES THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 04.08.20 06. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT ON 04.08.2 006 AT THE BUSINESS CUM RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ONE SHRI SUNIL JAIN ALIAS T ILAK JAIN AND SEEMA JAIN. SINCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE APPELLANT HAVE AL SO BEEN FOUND FROM THE SEARCHED PREMISES OF SHRI JAIN, PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C HAVE BE EN INITIATED BY THE A.O. BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ON 20.11.2009. WHILE MAKING SAID ADDITION, THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED AS UNDER: ON GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED AT THE T IME OF SEARCH IN PAGE NO. 71 & 72 DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS B Y THREE PARTNERS NAMELY SH. R.S. GUPTA HAVING 60% SHARE, S.K. KHANDU JA HAVING SHARE 20% AND SUNIL JAIN 20% SHARE. A TOTAL WORKIN G OF 65 LAKHS RECEIVED. AGAIN NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 09/12/2009 A LONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE TO MAKE COMPLIANCE ON 14/12/2009. AS THE ASSESSES HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) A SU MMONS U/S 131 WAS ISSUED ON 15/12/2009 TO ATTEND THE ASSESSEE PER SONALLY ON 21/12/2009. ON 21/12/2009, ASSESSEE SH. RAM SWAROOP GUPTA ATTENDED AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY NOT THE INVESTMEN T IN VATSAL SHIKSHA SAMITI, GWALIOR ALONG WITH TWO PARTNERS NAM ELY SH. S.K. (SUNIL KHANDUJA HAVING 20% SHARE AND SUNIL JAIN 20% SHARE AND THE SHARE OF THE ASSEESSE WAS 60% OF TOTAL 65 LAKHS, HI S SHARE ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION IS OF RS. 39,00,000/-, IS NOT A DDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A NO.03 &0 4/AGRA/2010 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED REPLY ALONGWITH COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILLED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON 30/08/ 2001 SHOWING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND PROFESSIONAL INCOME FROM CONSULTANCY AND VALUATION ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT WHERE IN HE HAS STATED THAT HE WAS OFFICIATING AS THE PRESIDENT OF VATSAL SHIKSHA SAMITI, GWALIOR DURING THE PERIOD JULY, 2000 TO SEPT. 2001. HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT HE RESIGNED FROM THE PRESIDENT SHIP AND THE MEMBERSHIP OF VATSAL SHIKSHA SAMITI, GWALIOR IN SEPT. 2001 AND HA VE GOT NO CONCERN WTAHTSOEVER WITH THE SAID SAMITI SINCE SEPT.2001 AN D HANDED OVER ALL THE DOCUMENTS, PAPERS, FILES, REGISTERS AND BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID SAMITI TO THE THEN SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY SM T. SEEMA JAIN W/O SH. SUNIL CHAND JAIN ALIAS TILAK JAIN AND THE PAPER S RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH HAS GOT NO CONCERN WITH THE ASSESSEE . HE HAS ALSO DENIED OF HAVING ACCOUNT WITH UCO BANK AND ABOUT TH E CHEQUE NUMBERS MENTIONED IN THE SAID PAPERS. HE ALSO STATE D THAT HE INVESTED RS. 4,79,550/- IS VATSAL SHIKSHA SAMITI, AND AT THE TIME OF HIS RETIREMENT FROM THE SAID SAMITI HE RECEIVED BACK TH E AMOUNT. STATEMENT OF THE ASSEESEE WAS RECORDED AN OATH WHE REIN ALSO THE ASSESSES HAS DENIED THE INVESTMENT OF ` 39,00,0 00 AT THE SAME TIME HE HAS AGREED OF HIS INVESTMENT AT RS. 479550/-. HE HAS NOT PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR THE INVESTMENT IN VATSAL SH IKSHA SAMITI, AND MERELY SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT AND COPY OF RETURN OF IN COME SHOWING RENTAL INCOME AND PROFESSIONAL INCOME ONLY. IN HIS STATEMENT ALSO HE DENIED OF HIS INVOLVEMENT IN VATSAL SHIKSHA SAMITI AND AT THE SAME TIME HE HAS ACCEPTED AS HE WORKED IN THE CAPACITY O F PRESIDENT IN THE SAID SAMITI. ON EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMIT TED BY HE ASSESSEE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED R S. 16,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR IN VATSAL SHIKSHA SAMITI, GWALIOR AS THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NA TURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION AND INI TIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A AND ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S . 143(2) BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT SAME WERE DISMISSED. AS REGARDS COMPLETION OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. IT(SS)A NO.03 &0 4/AGRA/2010 4 153C AND ADDITIONS ON MERITS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWE D BOTH THESE GROUNDS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. HIS FINDINGS I N PARA 4 TO 5.2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4. REGARDING ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S153C BEYOND LIM ITATION AND SUBSEQUENT COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY PASSING ORDER U/S153A, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. AS PER RECORD, SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN CASE OF SUNIL JAIN ALIAS TILAK JAIN AND SEEMA JAIN HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ON 04. 08.2006. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, GWALIOR HAS TRANSFERRED THE SEIZED DOCU MENTS PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT CONTAINED IN ENCLOSURE NO. LPS 2/11 T O THE A.O. VIDE LETTER NO. ACIT/CIRCLE-2/GWL/08-09/970 DATED 12.02. 2009 WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE A.O. ON 19.02.2009. SUBSEQUENT LY NOTICED U/S 153C HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ON 20.10.200 9 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TO 2007-08. AS PER PROVISIO N OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, NOTICE U/S 153C IS TO BE ISSUED TO T HE APPELLANT CONCERNED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT O F EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATEL Y PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS IN WHICH S UCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE. FINANCE ACT, 2005 HAS INSERTED PROVISO IN SECTION 153C, W.R.E.F. 01.06.2003 WHICH READS AS UNDER: PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB-SEC TION (1 ) OF SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR R EQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON . AS PER RECORDS, THE A.O. HAS RECEIVED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT ON 12.02.2009. THUS, THE A.O. WAS EMPOWERED TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSME NT / REASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 153C FOR AND FROM THE A.Y. 20 03-04 ONWARDS .NO NOTICES U/S 153C CAN BE ISSUED FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 AND 2002-03 , AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE A.O. SINCE THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR IS 2009-10 FALLING IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2008-09, THE A .O. COULD REOPEN IT(SS)A NO.03 &0 4/AGRA/2010 5 THE ASSESSMENT FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS PRECEDING T HIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEY WOULD BE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, 2007- 08, 2006-07, 2005-06 2004-05, AND 2003-04. IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C WHICH ARE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, IT IS HELD THAT NOTICE U/S 153C ISSUED ON 20.10.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION IS INVALID AND BARRED BY LIMITATION. ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN CONSEQUE NCE THEREOF IS HELD TO BE NULL AND VOID. THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN HELD BY HBLE ITAT, AHEMDABAD IN CASE OF VIJAY M. VIMAWAL VS . AC IT ( 2009) 34 SOT (AHD)34 (URO ) IN APPEAL NO .1789 (AHD) OF 2008 AND 141 ( AHD ) OF 2009 . APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND. 5. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND ADDITION OF RS. 16,00,000/- AND RS. 23,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O., IT IS SEEN TH AT THE A. O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LPS 2/11 PG. NO 71 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 60% 20% GUPTA JI S.K. A. 65 LAC 40+25 B. 55.00 40+15 30.00 25/03/2001 16 06 25.00 01/09/2001 03 02 NET TOTAL 19 08 C 40.00 40+0 01/04/2001 10 05 D 30.00 40-10 04 03 5.1 ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT ON RE CEIPT OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS FROM ACIT, CIRCLE-2 GWALIOR, THE A.O. HIMSELF DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SURE THAT THE APPELLANT IS THE PERSON TO WHOM THESE DOCU MENT PERTAIN. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM HIS LETTER DATED 23.03.2009 WRITTEN TO ACIT CIRCLE-2 THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDE R. BL LACA/K ESSA VUQJKS/K GS FD MIJKSDR I= DS }KJK FU /KZFJRH VKJ- ,L- XQIRK XOKFY;J DS IZDJ.K ESA VK;DJ VF/KFU;E DH /KKJK 153C DS RGR DK;ZOKGH FD;S TKUS DK MYYS[K FD;K X;K GS] FDURQ MDR OF.KZR FU/KKZFJRH DK U RKS L FKK;H YS[KK LA[;K FN;K X;K GS VKSJ U GH I= DS LKFK LAYXUDKSA LS ;G IRK PY JGK GS FD ;G IZDJ.K BL DK;KZY; DS {KS=KF/KDKJ ESA VKRK GSA ,SLH FLFKFR ESA LGH FU/ KKZFJRH DH IGPKU DJUK] FTUDS FO:} VK;DJ VF/KFU;E DH /KJK 153C DS RGR DK;ZOKGH FD;K TKUK LAHKO UGHA GSA VR% VUQJKS/K GS FD BL LACA/K ESA IW.KZ FOOJ.K NSUS DH D `IK DJSAA FTLLS ;G KKR GKS LDS FD LACSF/KR FU/KKZFJRRH BL DK;KZY; DS {KS=KF/KDKJ ESA VKRK GSA IT(SS)A NO.03 &0 4/AGRA/2010 6 SUBSEQUENTLY ALSO VIDE LETTER DATED 30.03.2009, 14 .08.2009, 30.09.2009 AND 28.10.2009, THE A.O. HIMSELF IS INFO RMING THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 AND SEEKING DIRECTIONS FROM JCIT RANGE-2 G WALIOR REGARDING ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153C TO THE APPROP RIATE PERSON . THE SATISFACTION NOTE PREPARED BY THE A.O. VIDE ORDER S HEET ENTRY DATED 20.10.2009 ALSO SHOWS THAT THE A.O. IS NOT CERTAIN THAT THE DOCUMENT PERTAIN TO SHRI R.S. GUPTA. THE SATISFACTION NOTE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SHRI R.S. GUPTA ALONG WITH THREE OTHERS HAVE ESTAB LISHED A COLLEGE IN THE NAME OF VATSAL SHIKSHA SAMITI AT GWALIOR, DETAI LS OF INVESTMENT BY THE THREE PARTNERS SAME GUPTAJI (MAY BE SHRI R.S. GUPTA) HAVING 60% SHARE & SUNIL JAIN 20% SHARE . A TOTAL WORKING OF 65 LACS RECEIVED ON 20.03.01 AND 01.09.01 FROM VARIOUS PERS ONS. HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE COLLEGE AND SHARE OF INVESTMENT NEEDS VERIFICATION 5.2 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT ALONGWITH WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS THAT HE WAS OFFICIATING AS PRESIDENT OF VATSAL SHIK SHA SAMITI, GWALIOR DURING THE PERIOD JULY, 2000 TO SEPTEMBER, 2001. SI NCE HIS RESIGNATION FROM THE PRESIDENTSHIP AND MEMBERSHIP O F THE SAID SAMITI IN SEPTEMBER 2001, ALL THE DOCUMENTS , PAPERS, FILE S, REGISTERS, AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE THEN SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY NAMELY MRS. SEEMA JAIN W/O SHRI SUNIL JAIN . THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY FROM THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETY/FIRM , GWALIOR OR THE PRESENT OFFICE BEARERS OF THE SOCIETY. NO OPPORTUNI TY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI SUNIL JAIN /SEE MA JAIN FROM WHOSE PREMISES THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SEIZED AND M ADE THE BASIS FOR THE ADDITION. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ARE ALSO NEI THER IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE APPELLANT NOR CONTAIN ANY SIGNAT URE AND HAVE BEEN FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE THIRD PARTY. THERE IS NO MATERIAL AND NEXUS TO SHOW THAT THESE LOOSE PAPERS BELONG TO THE APPELLANT WHO HAS DENIED THEM AS BELONGING TO HIM. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF H IS INCOME TAX RETURN FILED ORIGINALLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION ON 30.08.2001 WHEREBY INVESTMENT OF ` 4,79,550/- IN VA TSAL SHIKSHA SAMITI HAS BEEN DULY DECLARED, THE SOURCE OF WHICH IS ALSO FOUND TO BE EXPLAINED. THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THE APPELLANT IT(SS)A NO.03 &0 4/AGRA/2010 7 ON HIS RESIGNATION FROM THE SAMITI. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORDS AFTER MAKING ANY INQUIR Y FROM UCO BANK, HIGH COURT ROAD, GWALIOR TO PROVE THAT THE CH EQUES MENTIONING THE AMOUNTS HAVE, INDEED, BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPE LLANT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORDS TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INVESTED `39,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS. THUS, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69 OF THE IT ACT ARE NOT FOUND TO APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJ ECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY REASON AND IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF ` 39,00,000/- FOR THESE TWO ASSTT. YEAR S ON THE BASIS OF UNSIGNED LOOSE DOCUMENTS NOT IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE APPELLANT AND SHOWING CERTAIN JOTTINGS/WORKINGS FOUND FROM THE PR EMISES OF A THIRD PARTY. ADDDITION OF `16,00,000/- FOR THE AY 2001-0 2 AND `23,00,000/- FOR THE AY 2002-03 IS DELETED. 4. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 296 ITR 619 AND OF GUJRAT HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 333 IT R 436. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT BOTH THE ADDITIONS ON MERIT HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE IN VATSAL SHIKSHA SAMITI, GWALIOR. IT IS A FACT THAT NO SEARC H WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WHATEVER SEIZED MATERIAL WAS FOUND WAS RE COVERED FROM THE BUSINESS CUM RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI SUNIL JAIN AND SEE MA JAIN. NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD IF BOTH THESE PERSONS MADE ANY ADVERSE ST ATEMENT AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECOR D BY THE AO TO SHOW THAT THE IT(SS)A NO.03 &0 4/AGRA/2010 8 ASSESSEE, IN FACT, MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THIS SAMI TI. WHATEVER INVESTMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE IN THE SAMITI WAS DULY DECLARED A ND SOURCE OF THE SAME WAS ALSO FOUND EXPLAINED. THE AMOUNT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS TAKEN BACK ON HIS RESIGNATION FROM THE SAMITI. THUS, THERE WAS NO EVI DENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF ANY AMOUNT IN THE SAMITI. SINCE THE S EIZED MATERIAL WAS NOT RECOVERED FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THER EFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BOUND TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. MORE SO, WHEN THE DETAIL S OF SEIZED MATERIAL CLEARLY SHOW THAT IT DID NOT IMPLICATE THE ASSESSEE OF ANY INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SAMITI. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GIR SH CHAUDHARY, 296 ITR 619 HELD HELD ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW ON WHAT BASIS THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAD REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FIGURE 48 WAS TO BE READ AS RS.48 LAKHS. THE DOCUMENT RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS A DUMB DOCUMENT AND LED NOWHERE. THE TRIBUNAL HAD RIG HTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.48 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT GIVE RISE TO A QUESTI ON OF LAW MUCH LESS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 5.1 THE ABOVE JUDGMENT CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SEIZED PAPER WOULD NOT INDICATE ANYTHING THAT THE A SSESSEE MADE ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN SAMITI. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC MATERIAL TO LINK THE ASSESS EE WITH ANY INVESTMENT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) IN DELETING BOTH THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 1 OF APPEALS O F THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.03 &0 4/AGRA/2010 9 6. AS REGARDS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED AS INVALID AND BARRED BY LIMITATION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIJAY M. VIMAWAL VS. ACIT(SUPRA) WHICH APPEARS TO BE DIRECTLY ON THE POINT IN ISSUE. FURTH ER, WHEN SOLE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE DELETION IS CONFI RMED BY US, THERE IS NO NEED TO DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE, WHICH IS HAVING ACADEMIC IN TEREST ONLY AT THIS STAGE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY