Tilak Raj Ajmani Karta of Tilak Raj Ajmani(Huf), V. DCIT,

ITSSA 8/RAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0507 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINAY KR JALANFCS LD
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK ROSHAN SENIOR
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 132; 2

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT , AND HON'BLE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) NO . 08 & 09/RAN/2014 A.Y S 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 SHRI TILAK RAJ A JMANI VS. D.C.I.T, C.C - 3, RANCHI KARTA OF TILAK RAJ AJMANI (HUF) PAN: AABHT6790D [ APPELLANT ] [ RESPONDENT ] FOR THE RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE : SHRI VINAY KR. JALAN,FCS, LD.AR FOR THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT : SHRI DEEPAK ROSHAN, SENIOR S.C, LD.DR DATE OF HEARING : 03 - 12 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03 - 12 - 2014 ORDER SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 30 - 01 - 2014 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A), RANCHI AND THEY RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAD CARRIED OUT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT IN THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF AJMANI GROUP, CHURCH ROAD, RANCHI ON 25 - 01 - 2006. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH OPERATION, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. THE ADDITIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE 153C PROCEEDINGS WERE CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE REASONS FOR SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WAS NOT COMMUNIC ATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE 2 IT (SS) NO S. 08 & 09 /RAN/2014 SRI TILAK RAJ AJMANI - HUF DEPARTMENT CHALLENGED THE SAID ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) BY FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14 - 05 - 2010 IN IT(SS) NOS.95 & 97/RAN/2009, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND R ESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: - A. UNEXPLAINE D BANK DEPOSITS RS. 10,31,061/ - B. LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RS. 4,76,520/ - 4. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS OF RS. 2,27,879/ - . 5. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE DISMISSED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD.AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE BANK PASS BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DEPOSIT DURING THE YEARS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 I.E. THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SUP PLIED THE MATERIALS FROM WHICH HE CAME TO KNOW OF THE ALLEGED DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE TWO YEARS. THE LD.AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS OF UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSIT. 7. WITH REGARD TO T HE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 3000 SHARES OF M/S. BACCHAT INVESTMENT AND EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION/ASSESSMENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3 IT (SS) NO S. 08 & 09 /RAN/2014 SRI TILAK RAJ AJMANI - HUF 8. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENT RELATING TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AL SO COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE PASS BOOK FURNISHED BY LD A.R BEFORE US, WE DO NOT FIND ENTRIES RELATING TO THE DEPOSITS AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE POSSIBILITIES ARE THAT EITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO UPDATE THE PASS BOOK PROPERLY OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER MIGHT BE WRONG. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NON FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, FROM WHIC H HE HAS GATHERED ABOUT THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE THE BANK DEPOSITS. THUS, WE NOTICE THERE IS OBSCURITY IN THE FACTS RELATING TO THE UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH IN BOTH THE YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO DIREC TED TO FURNISH COPIES OF THE THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE WITH HIM IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION AND CONSIDER THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW IN BOTH THE YEARS. 10. WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE RELATING TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES, WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS RELATING TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE PASSED IN AY 2005 - 06 AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF EARNING OF LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN. 4 IT (SS) NO S. 08 & 09 /RAN/2014 SRI TILAK RAJ AJMANI - HUF 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 03 - 12 - 2014 SD/ - SD/ - [ H.L. KARWA ] [ B.R. BASKARAN ] PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 03 - 12 - 2014 PLACE : RANCHI PP, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT : 2 THE RESP ONDENT: 3..THE CIT, 4.THE CIT(A), 5.DR, ITAT CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR 1. DATE OF DICTATION ............. 03 - 12= - 2014. ORDER MODIFIED BY THE MEMBER IN HIS LAPTOP .... .... DICTATION TAKEN .............. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ........................OTHER MEMBER ............................... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. ................... .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR 5 IT (SS) NO S. 08 & 09 /RAN/2014 SRI TILAK RAJ AJMANI - HUF PRONOUNCEMENT.................................. 03 - 12 - 2014 ................................................... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S ....... ......... 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK ....................................... 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ......................................... 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................................................................................................. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ............. 1. DATE OF DICTATION ............. 03 - 12= - 2014 . ORDER MODIFIED BY THE MEMBER IN HIS LAPTOP ........ DICTATION TAKEN .............. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ........................OTHER MEMBER ............................... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. ..................... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.................................. 0 3 - 12 - 2014 ................................................... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S ................ 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK ....................................... 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ......................................... 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................................................................................................. 9. DATE OF D ESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..............................................................