Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Malerkotla V. ACIT, Patiala

MA 173/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9804 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Keywords: Loose papers

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 173/CHD/2012 IN ITSS NO 14/CHD/1997 BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1985 TO 05.10.1995 SHRI GURCHARAN SINGH, V ACIT (INVESTIGATION CIRCLE ) MALERKOTLA. PATIALA. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 18.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.01.2013 ORDER MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2009 IN ITSS NO. 14/CHANDI/1997 RELATING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1 985 TO 05.10.1995, WHICH WAS DISMISSED. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT IS AS UNDER : 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO.8 IN ORIGINAL GROU NDS OF APPEAL HAD CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,30,000/- PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEG ED ADVANCES TO BROTHERS SR.GURMAIL SINGH AND RAM SINGH EVEN THO UGH NO DOCUMENT SUGGESTING SUCH ADVANCES WAS FOUND DURIN G SEARCH. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ADDITION IS BASED ON EITHER SUR MISE OR MISCONCEPTION OF LAW OR FACTS. 3. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE HON'BL E BENCH, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE A BSOLUTELY DUMB DOCUMENTS BEING ROUGH JOTTINGS AND CUTTINGS. N O SUCH ENTRIES OF RS.1,55,000/-AND RS.75,000/- AS MENTIONE D IN THE 2 ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE APPEARING ON PAGES 13 & 14 OF DOCUMENT A-3 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MADE. 4. THAT REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGES 13 & 14 OF THE PAP ER BOOK FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHEREIN IT WAS EXPLAINED TH AT NO SUCH ENTRIES WERE APPEARING ON THESE PAGES AND AS SUCH N O ADDITION WHATSOEVER IS CALLED FOR. THERE WAS ONLY ONE ENTRY OF RS.55,000/- WHICH WAS APPEARING ON PAGE 14 WHICH AT THE MOST COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. THE ENTRY OF RS.1,55,000/- STOOD SCORED OFF WHICH HAD NO NARR ATION WHATSOEVER. 5. THAT THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE- APPELLANT DO NOT FIND MENTION IN THE ORDER OF THE H ON'BLE BENCH WHICH IT APPEARS ESCAPED NOTICE OF THE HON'BLE BENC H. 3. LD. 'AR' FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT THE FACTS AS POINTED OUT, HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED IN PARA 11 O F THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THOUGH THE ALTERNATE SUBMISSION HAS B EEN RECORDED AND CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSI NG THE ORDER IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.8 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. LD. 'DR' FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECID ED THE ISSUE VIDE PARA 12 OF ORDER DATED 29.01.2001. 4. THE GROUND NO.8 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ADJUD ICATED VIDE PARA 11 AND 12 AT PAGES 43 AND 44 OF THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2001. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. 'AR' FOR TH E ASSESSEE AND LD. 'DR' FOR THE REVENUE ARE INCORPORATED IN PA RA 11, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 11. THROUGH GROUND NO. 8, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLEN GED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,30,000/- MADE IN THE YEAR 1995-96 (IN THE BLO CK PERIOD) ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES MADE TO SHRI GURMAIL SINGH & SHRI RAM SING H. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS ADDITION RELYING ON PAGES 12 & 13 OF ANNEXURE A-3, WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE P APER-BOOK FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AT PAGES 13 & 14. ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THESE PAGES AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MERE PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS WOULD SHO W THAT THESE ARE DUMB 3 DOCUMENTS, IN AS MUCH AS, PAGE 13 OF THE PAPER-BOOK FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT REFERS TO ACCOUNT OF INCOME & EXPENDITURE OF PLYING OF VAN ON HIRE BASIS. IT IS NO WHERE MENTIONED ON THE DOCUMENT AS TO WHOM IT BELON GS WHILE ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE SAME DOCUMENT IS THE NAME GURMAIL SINGH ACCOUN T MENTIONED AT THE TOP. THE ACCOUNTS THEREUNDER STAND SCORED OFF. IT DOES NOT MENTION AS TO WHETHER SOME AMOUNT IS TO BE TAKEN BY SH GURMAIL SINGH OR IS TO BE GIVEN BY SHRI GURMAIL SINGH AND TO WHOM SUCH AMOUNT IS TO BE GIVEN OR FROM WHOM SUCH AMOUNT IS TO BE TAKEN. SIMILARLY, ON PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER-BOOK THE NARRATI ON ON THE TOP IS WRITTEN AS RAM SINGH BUT NOTHING CAN BE DECIPHERED ON THAT PAGE A LSO. THESE, AS PER THE LD. COUNSEL ARE ROUGH NOTINGS WITH CUTTINGS AND SCORING OFF THE SAME HAPHAZARDLY. IT WAS, THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY ON SUSPICION MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WHICH IS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT D. R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DOCUMENTS BASED ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MADE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THESE WERE NOT DUMB DOCUMENTS BUT SELF-SPEAKING IN AS MUCH AS THE NAME OF SHRI GURMAIL SINGH AND SHRI RAM SINGH APPEARED ON THE PAGES AND THE ONLY I NFERENCE WHICH COULD BE DRAWN WAS THAT SUCH AMOUNTS WERE ADVANCED BY THE AS SESSEE TO HIS BROTHERS. AS SUCH, THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. 4. THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS IN PARA 12, WH ICH IS AS UNDER : 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. RELEVANT DISCUSSION FINDS PLACE IN PARAGRAP H 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ADDITION CAN MERELY BE TERMED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT AS THEY DO NOT SPEAK WHETHER THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED ON THEM REFERS TO SOME OUTGOING, INCOMING , ADVANCE, LOAN, ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REACHED AT THE CONCLUSION THA T THESE ARE THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, IF WE C ONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE CORRECT, STILL THE FACT REMAINS THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE RECOVERED FROM THE HOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE, CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME BUT THAT WAS NOT DONE. MERELY, CLAIMING T HE SAME TO BE DUMB DOCUMENT IS NOT ENOUGH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS OTHERWISE PROVED. SINCE, NOTHING WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS C ONFIRMED, CONSEQUENTLY, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVESAID, IT REFLECTS T HAT THE FACTUAL ASPECT RAISED BY THE APPLICANT DOES NOT FIN D A MENTION IN 4 THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS PUT TO THE LD. ' AR' FOR THE APPLICANT, WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE IN THI S REGARD. LD. 'AR' FOR THE APPLICANT FAILED TO BRING TO OUR NOTIC E ANY SUCH EVIDENCE THAT A PLEA WAS RAISED TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE WERE NO SUCH ENTRIES OF RS.1,55,000/- AND RS.75,000/-, APPE ARING ON THE SAID PAGES 13 & 14 DOCUMENT A-3. THE PERUSAL O F THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL I.E. AT PAGES 43-44 OF THE ORDER RE FLECTS THE LD. 'AR' TO HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS BEING DUMB DOCUMENTS AND VARIOUS OTHER ISSUES, BUT NO SUCH FAC TUAL ASPECT OF THE ENTRIES BEING NOT THERE ON THE SAID SEIZED D OCUMENTS, FINDS A MENTION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE PLEA RAISED BY THE APPLICANT BEING A FRESH PLEA, CANNOT BE ENTERTA INED BY WAY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS THE SCOPE OF THE POWER S TO BE EXERCISED BY THE TRIBUNAL ENSHRINED IN SECTION 254( 2) OF THE ACT ARE LIMITED. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE APPLICANT AN D THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY,2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH JAN.,2013. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH.