Shri Ramesh Zinabhai Tailor, Surat V. The DY.CIT.,Cent.Circle-2, Surat

ITSSA 759/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0797 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: S H RI G. D. AGRAWAL , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER RAMESHBHAI ZINABHAI TAILOR, MAIN BAZAR, VYARA - 394650 PAN: AAOPT9468P (APPELLANT) VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, SURAT (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: S HRI MEHUL SHAH , A.R. REVENUE BY: SHRI SANJ AY AGRAWAL, CIT - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 24 - 06 - 2 015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 - 07 - 2 015 / ORDER P ER : RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 4 TH AUGUST, 2010 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. I T (SS) A NO . 759 / A HD/20 10 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 2 - 03 I.T (SS) .A NO. 759 /AHD/20 10 A.Y. 2002 - 03 PAGE NO RAMESH ZINABHAI TAI LOR VYARA VS. DCIT 2 2. IN THE SOLITARY SUBSTANTIAL GROUND OF APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS . 3,87,500/ - 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT AND SALE OF PLOT OF LAND. A SEARCH OPERATION U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 15 - 11 - 2006. IN ORDER TO GIVE A LOGICAL END TO THE SEARCH PROCEEDING, A NOTICE U/S. 153A(A) WAS ISS UED TO THE ASSESSE E ON 3 RD MARCH, 2008 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, ASSESSEE HAS F ILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 28 TH MARCH, 2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,32,470/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BILLS OF PURCHASE OF K APCHI AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,99,750/ - DATED 28 - 02 - 2002 AND RS. 1,37,750/ - DATED 4 TH MARCH, 2002 WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THES E PAPERS WERE INVENTORIES AS PAGES NO. 242 TO 267 OF ANNEXURE B - 12. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY OF ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT FIRST BILL OF RS. 2,99,750/ - PERTAINS TO HIS WIFE SMT. JA YAN ABEN TAILOR . AGAINST THIS BILL, SHE MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS. 90,000/ - WHICH HAS DULY BEEN ACCOUNTED. AS FAR AS THE SECOND BILL IS CONCERNED, A WRONG AMOUNT HAS BEEN MENTIONED. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 50,000/ - WHICH HAS DULY BEEN SETTLED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS IN TABULAR FORM WHICH READS AS UNDER: - NAME DATE CHEQUE NO. AMOUNT REMARKS JAYANABEN TAILOR 02 - 11 - 2002 28 - 02 - 2003 480039 OF SBI 480048 OF SBI 50,000 40,000 AGAINST BILL OF RS. 2,99,750/ - 90,000 I.T (SS) .A NO. 759 /AHD/20 10 A.Y. 2002 - 03 PAGE NO RAMESH ZINABHAI TAI LOR VYARA VS. DCIT 3 RAMESH TAILOR 04 - 05 - 2002 891061 O F SBI TOTAL 50,000 AGAINST BILL OF RS. 1,37,750/ - 1,40,000 4. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE AND HE MADE AN ADDITION OF R S. 3,87,5 00/ - IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON APPEAL, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION . 6. THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) READS AS UNDER: - 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS. I D O NOT AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT S VIEW. THE BILLS FOR RS. 2,99,750/ - WERE APPEARING IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT ONLY AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE T HAT IT W AS IN RESPECT OF SMT. JAYANABEN TAILOR. FURTHER, THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THESE WERE MODIFIED AND REDUCED TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 90,000/ - WHICH WAS PAID BY SMT. JAYANABEN TAILOR. EVEN AT THE APP ELLATE STAGE, NO EVIDENCE IS FI L E D IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THE FACT MENTIONED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT IN HIS STATEMEN T U/S. 132(4), THE APPELLANT MADE THE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 1.50 CRORES FOR THE SELF AND FAMILY MEMBERS BUT WHILE FILING THE RETURN, THE TOTAL RETURNED FI L E D WAS RS. 68,41,574/ - WHICH INDICATES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RETRACTED FROM THE STATEMENT AND DID NOT CO VER THE ENTIRE DISCREPANCIES IN THE PAPERS FOUND IN THE SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION WHICH IS UPHELD. 7. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE STAND AS WAS BEFORE THE LD . REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. I.T (SS) .A NO. 759 /AHD/20 10 A.Y. 2002 - 03 PAGE NO RAMESH ZINABHAI TAI LOR VYARA VS. DCIT 4 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. ADMITTEDLY, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, LOOSE PAPER INVENTORIED AS PAGE NOS. 244 TO 268 OF ANNEXURE B - 12 WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THESE PAPERS EXHIBIT THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED A SUM OF RS . 2,99,750/ - ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2002 AND RS. 1,37,750/ - ON 4 TH MARCH, 2002 FOR PURCHASE OF KAPCHI. THE BILLS ARE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT PAYMENT FOR LAND FILLING WORK ETC . ARE BEING SETTLED AFTER VERIFICATION WITH THE RECORDS MAINTAINED AT SITE AND VER Y OFTEN NOT ONLY THE RATE IN THE SAID BILLS VARY WITH AGREE D BILL, BUT EVEN QUANTITY THEREOF DIFFERS SUBSTANTIALLY AND THUS, IT IS A COMMON FEATURE THAT BILLS ARE ACTUALLY SETTLED AT A LOWER FIGURE. THE SECOND ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONE OF THE BILL S PERTAINS TO HIS WIFE WHO HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 90,000/ - O NLY. TO OUR MINDS, BOTH THESE EXPLANATIONS DO NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE F R O M HIS RESPONSIBILITY. AS FAR AS THE FIRST CONTENTION IS CONCERNED, IT IS ASSESSEE WHO HAS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT PARTICULAR KAPCHI WAS PURCHASED FOR A PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND. HE OUG HT TO HAVE FILED A CONFIRMATION F R O M THE PERSON WHO HAS SUPPLI ED THE K APCHI. HE OUGHT TO HAVE FILED THE QUANTITY OF THE PURCHASES ALONG WITH THE RATES AND EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE DELIVERY , B Y MERELY CLAIMING THAT IT WAS SETTLED FOR A DIFFERENT AMOUNT IS NOT SUFFICIENT. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE LINK BETWEEN THE PAYMENT MADE BY HIS WIFE VIS - - VIS THE BILL. THE PAYMENT THOUGH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BUT THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION, NO NEXUS OF THESE PAYMENTS THAT THESE WERE MADE AGAINST THIS VERY BILL. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE SIMILAR BUSINESS AND I.T (SS) .A NO. 759 /AHD/20 10 A.Y. 2002 - 03 PAGE NO RAMESH ZINABHAI TAI LOR VYARA VS. DCIT 5 POSSIBILITY OF MAKING PAYMENT BY HER QUA ANOTHER PURCHASE RELATING TO HER PURCHASE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NATURE OF THESE BILLS, THE LAND WHERE FILLING WAS MADE AND THIS K APCHI WAS USED. THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SUPPLIER DEMONSTRATING THE QUANTITY OF K APCHI AS WELL AS THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SUPPLIED AND USED , NO SUCH EFFORTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HI S ASSERTION REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. THEREFORE, LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL. IT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 - 07 - 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( G.D. AGRAWAL ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 24 /07 /2015 AK / COPY O F ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,