The ACIT, Circle-3, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Rajeshkumar Mahendrakumar & Co., Ahmedabad

ITSSA 496/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0467 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P VAISHNAV

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A NO.496/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005] ACIT, CIR.3 AHMEDABAD. /VS. M/S.RAJESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR & CO., G-2, PRAKASH SILVER HOUSE M.G. HAVELI ROAD MANEKCHOWK, AHMEDABAD. ( (( ( -. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( ( /0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) + 1 2 ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. VAISHNAV, CIT-DR 4& 1 2 ) / ASSESSEE BY : NONE 5 1 &(* / DATE OF HEARING : 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 678 1 &(* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/12/2014 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2004-2005 IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDE NT AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNM ENT OF THE CASE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT. IN THESE FACTS, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. IT(SS)A NO.496/AHD/2011 -2- 3. THE ONLY GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED SEIZED CASH. 4. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO . HE REFERRED TO RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SUPPOR T OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. CERTAI N GOLD, SILVER AND CASH WAS SEIZED IN DELHI BY THE POLICE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED GOLD WORTH RS.3,92,666/- AND UNEXPLAINED SILVER OF RS.35 ,31,466/- AND UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS.1,03,650/- MAKING A TOTAL OF RS.40,27,782/- AND THE ONLY BALANCE AMOUNT REMAINS IN THE FORM OF CASH AMO UNTING TO RS.8,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAID CASH BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS BEING SENT TO HEAD OFFICE AT AHM EDABAD FROM THE BRANCH OFFICE AT DELHI, AND DUE TO SEARCH BY THE DE LHI POLICE, THE SAME WAS SEIZED. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN BHARTIA DATED 3.3.2004 AS LAST ITEM WHEREIN NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS SENDER AS WELL AS THE RECEIVER IS MENTIONED. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ABOUT 403 DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND STILL THE AO HAD NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE TO ANY SUCH LETTER OR EX PLANATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE CIT( A) HAS OBSERVED THAT AT THE REMAND STAGE ALSO THE AO HAD TRIED TO LINGER ON THE SMALL ISSUE IN THE GUISE OF DEEP INVESTIGATION. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORD ED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE AS TO WHAT TYPE OF DEEP INVES TIGATION WAS REQUIRED IN THIS CASE. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE CASH WAS FOUND IT(SS)A NO.496/AHD/2011 -3- RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK OF THE DELHI BRANCH, AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. H E HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT CASH WAS EXPLAINED, AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION WAS REQUIRED, AND HAS REPRODUCED RELEVANT ENTRIES OF CASH BOOK IN HIS APP ELLATE ORDER. HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT OUT OF THE AVAILABLE CASH, THE CASH OF RS.8,50,000/- WAS SENT TO DELHI BRANCH ON 23.2.2004 WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN DELHI BRANCH ON 24.02.2004 AND THE SAME WAS RECORDED IN DELHI BRANC H ON 24.2.2004 AS RECEIVED FROM HEAD OFFICE, AHMEDABAD. HE HAS RECOR DED THAT THE RECEIPT AND DISPATCH OF CASH FROM HEAD OFFICE TO BRANCH AND BRANCH TO HEAD OFFICE THROUGH ANGADIA SERVICE IS NORMAL FEATURES. THERE BEING NO MATERI AL BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /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