Sri Harmahender Singh Bagga, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Hyderabad

MA 110/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3619 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y SESHA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS. 109 & 110/HYD/2013 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NOS. 69 & 74/HYD/2005 SHRI HARMAHENDE R SINGH BAGGA, HYDERABAD [PAN: ABXPB9316L] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI Y. SESHA SRINIVAS, DR DATE OF HEARING : 18-09-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-10-2015 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : SHRI HARMAHENDER SINGH BAGGA FILED THESE TWO MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN IT(SS )A NOS. 69/HYD/2005 AND 74/HYD/2005 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 19 96-97 TO 2001-02 AND FROM 01-04-2001 TO 03-01-2002 DECIDED B Y THE COMMON ORDER IN THE GROUP OF APPEALS DT. 03-08-2012 . 2 M.A. NOS. 109 & 110/HYD/2013 2. IT IS THE GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS BEEN ARGUED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL THE FACT THAT TRANSACTIO NS ENTERED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND WHICH IS R EFLECTED IN THE BOOKS CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER FOR ADDITION IN BLOC K PERIOD ASSESSMENTS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ITAT HAS NOT CO NSIDERED THE ESTABLISHED LAW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED IN TH E REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE TO BE ENQUIRED INTO ONLY IN THE REG ULAR ASSESSMENT BUT NOT IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, UNLESS THERE IS SO METHING INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH WHICH HAS A BEARING ON THE DISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS. ASSES SEE FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS CONTENDING THAT THE JUDG MENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAVIKUMAR JAIN [2 50 ITR 141] HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED EVEN THOUGH RELIED UPON. 3. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED A CHART IN IT(SS)A NO. 69 /HYD/2005 GROUND NOS. 8 TO 13 CONTAINING THE ISSUES ON WHICH ADDITIONS ARE MADE AND ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT. FURTHER, IN IT(S S)A NO. 74/HYD/2005, THE GROUND NOS. 4 TO 10 ARE THE ISSUES IN WHICH VARIOUS AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT. IN IT(SS)A NO. 74/HYD/2005, BEING ASSESSEES APPEAL, DETAILED OBJECTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO EACH OF THE ISSUE ARE SUBMITTED A S UNDER: 1. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 22,04,746/-, IN A SSESSEE'S APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO. 74/H/05, THE ORDER MENTIONS AS UNDER AT PARA NO 36 OF PAGE 23 OF THE ORDER: 'OUT OF THE ABOVE FUNDS WITHDRAWN, THE ASSESSEE PUR CHASED DRAFTS IN FAVOUR OF MIS. SREE BALAJI ENTERPRISES, BANGALORE W HEREIN HE HIMSELF IS A PARTNER AND THESE DRAFTS WERE CREDITED IN HIS CAPIT AL ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM ' IT IS OBSERVED IN PAGE NO. 24 PARA NO. 39 OF THE IT AT ORDER THAT 'IN THIS CASE THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF MIS. SREE BALAJI ENTERPRISES AND THE SAID AMOUNT HAD CAM E FROM MIS. GOLDEN AGENCIES. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT MIS. GOLDEN A GENCIES WAS NOT FILING 3 M.A. NOS. 109 & 110/HYD/2013 THE RETURN OF INCOME OTHER THAN DISCLOSING INCOME U NDER VDIS FOR AYS 1993-94 AND 1994-95. BEING SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO H OLD THAT THE CAPACITY OF MIS. GOLDEN AGENCIES FOR GIVING THIS AMOUNT TO T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXPLAINED. HENCE THE ADDITION IS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT IS JUSTIFIED. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED.' THE HON'BLE ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONC E IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ENTRIES ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED UNDER BLOCK PERIOD AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 2. SIMILARLY, IN IT(SS)A NO.74/H/05, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 21,11,000/THE ORDER MENTIONS AS UNDER AT PARA NO 14 OF PAGE 12 OF THE ORDER: ' ... BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT IN THE CAPI TAL ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 199798, FOLLOWING CREDIT ENTRIES AR E APPEARING WHICH HAVE BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS, THEREBY TREATING THE SUM OF RS. 37,13,100/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE B LOCK PERIOD: .... ' IT IS OBSERVED IN PAGE NO. 11 PARA NO. 13 OF THE IT AT ORDER THAT 'THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED A GROUND IN IT(SS)A NO. 74/H/0 5 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 21,11,000 OUT OF RS. 37,13,400 MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. THE CIT(A) DELET ED THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,02,400 ON THE REASON THAT THE CREDIT IS EXPLAINE D AND SUSTAINED RS. 21,11,000 OUT OF RS. 37,13,400. BEFORE THE CIT(A) T HE ASSESSEE ALSO NOT PRESSED THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF CREDIT IN H IS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 13953 WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA. SIMILARLY, THE ASSE SSEE NOT PRESSED THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 14,000 THROUGH SB ALC NO 624 WITH SY NDICATE BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SATISFACTORY EXPLANA TION TO THE BALANCE SUSTAINED AMOUNT. BEING SO, THE CIT (A) SUSTAINED T HE SAME. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY FURTHER DETAILS SUBS TANTIATING THE CREDIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED. THE HON'BLE ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONC E IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ENTRIES ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED UNDER BLOCK PERIOD AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 3. SIMILARLY, IN IT(SS)A NO. 74/H/05, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 11,29,453/THE ORDER MENTIONS AS UNDER AT PARA NO 40 OF PAGE 25 OF THE ORDER: ' ... BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT IN THE CAPI TAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A. Y. 199899, THE FOLLOWING CREDIT ENTRIES HAVE BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED THEREBY TREATING THEM AS UNDISCLOSED IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD: .... ' THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,29,453 OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED FOR THE ADDITION OF RS 11, 29,453 (50,153 + 40,000 + 10,39,300). 4 M.A. NOS. 109 & 110/HYD/2013 IT IS OBSERVED IN PAGE NO. 25 PARA NO. 42 OF THE IT AT ORDER THAT 'EVEN BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO LEAD AN Y MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE. BEING SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO CO NFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE.' THE HON'BLE ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONC E IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ENTRIES ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED UNDER BLOCK PERIOD AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. SIMILARLY, IN IT(SS)A NO. 74/H/05, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,59,792/ - THE SAME AMOUNT IS REFLECTED IN BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AS CAN BE SEEN FROM PARA 43 AT PAGE 26 OF ORDER AND CANNOT BE ADDED IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. IT IS OBSERVED IN PAGE NO. 26 PARA NO. 43 OF THE IT AT ORDER THAT 'EVEN BEFORE US NO MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED IN ORDER TO SUBS TANTIATE THE CREDIT. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION.' THE HON'BLE ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONC E IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ENTRIES ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED UNDER BLOCK PERIOD AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 5. SIMILARLY, IN IT(SS)A NO. 74/H/05, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 7,43,750/ - THE SAME AMOUNT IS REFLECTED IN BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AS CAN BE SEEN FROM PARA 44-46 AT PAGE 26 OF ORDER AND CANNOT BE ADDED IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. IT IS OBSERVED IN PAGE NO. 27 PARA NO. 46 OF THE IT AT ORDER THAT 'NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE US TO SUBSTANTIATE THE C REDITS RELATING TO RS. 3,00,000. BEING SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,43,750, AS T HIS ISSUE WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE CIT(A), BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT HAVE GRIEVANCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RELATING TO SUSTAINING ADDI TION OF RS. 7,43,750 BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED.' THE HON'BLE ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONC E IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ENTRIES ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED UNDER BLOCK PERIOD AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 6. SIMILARLY, IN IT(SS)A NO. 74/H/05, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 14,00,000/THE SAME AMOUNT IS REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS CAN BE SEEN FROM PARA 48 AND 49 AT PAGE 28 OF ORDER AND CA NNOT BE ADDED IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. IT IS OBSERVED IN PAGE NO. 28 PARA NO. 48 OF THE IT AT ORDER THAT 'THE ADDITION RELATING TO RS. 1 LAKH IN THE NAME OF 1\1, IS. KULDEEP CHIT WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE CIT(A). HENCE THE ASSESSEE CANNO T RAISE THIS GROUND BEFORE US. THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED.' 5 M.A. NOS. 109 & 110/HYD/2013 IT IS OBSERVED IN PAGE NO. 28 PARA NO. 49 OF THE IT AT ORDER THAT 'THE ADDITION RELATING TO RS. 13 LAKHS IN THE NAME OF 1\ 1,IS. AJIT ENTERPRISES, AS THE PROFITS OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN 1\1,IS AJIT ENTERPRISES WAS NOT BEING SHOWN IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME SRI SATPAL SI NGH BAGGA, BEING SO THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTAB LE. THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED.' THE HON'BLE ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONC E IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ENTRIES ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED UNDER BLOCK PERIOD AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 7. SIMILARLY, IN IT(SS)A NO. 74/H/05, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 20,00,000/THE SAME AMOUNT IS REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS CAN BE SEEN FROM PARA 51 AT PAGE 29 OF ORDER AND CANNOT BE ADDED IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. IT IS OBSERVED IN PAGE NO. 29 PARA NO. 52 OF THE IT AT ORDER THAT AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE AB OVE ISSUE BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEING SO, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIE VANCE BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED.' THE HON'BLE ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONC E IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ENTRIES ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED UNDER BLOCK PERIOD AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. LD. DR HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THESE ISSUES WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT IN THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN THE GROUP AND SINCE THEY WERE ADJUDICATED AFTER DUE DELIBERATIONS, THERE IS NO NEED TO ENTERTAIN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS. 5. LD. COUNSEL IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT ON SIMILAR F ACTS, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IN THE GROUP CASES NUMBE RED 111, 112, 113, 60, 114/HYD/2013 ARISING IN THE CASES OF SHRI BALWINDER SINGH BAGGA, SMT INDERJEET KAUR BAGGA AND SHRI SATP AL SINGH BAGGA WERE ALLOWED VIDE ORDER DT. 30-07-2015. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES. NEITHER OF US ARE PARTY TO THE HEARINGS IN THE ORIG INAL APPEALS AND TO THE ORDER PASSED ON 03-08-12 AND WE ARE NOT IN A 6 M.A. NOS. 109 & 110/HYD/2013 POSITION TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE CONTENTIONS WERE R AISED AT THAT POINT OF TIME. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SU BMISSIONS MADE IN MA IN IT(SS)A NO. 74/HYD/2005 ABOVE AND THE ORD ER OF COORDINATE BENCH DT 30-07-2015 IN OTHER GROUP CASES WHEREIN ON SIMILAR APPLICATIONS SOME OF THE GROUNDS WERE RECAL LED, WE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RECALL THESE TWO APPEALS TO CO NSIDER AFRESH THOSE GROUNDS AS STATED ABOVE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING THE MERITS OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED B Y ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE-EXAMINATION ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AND THE PROVISIONS OF LA W AND TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE, WE ARE INCLINED TO RECA LL THE ORDERS FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THESE TWO APPEALS IN COURSE OF TIM E. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS ARE CONSIDERED ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015 TNMM 7 M.A. NOS. 109 & 110/HYD/2013 COPY TO : 1. SHRI HARMAHENDER SINGH BAGGA, H.NO. 3 - 5 - 115, NARAYANAGUDA, HYDERABAD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCL E-I, HYDERABAD. 3. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, HYDERABAD. 5 . THE CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 6 . D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD.