Subhash Verma V. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/175/2010

AI Insights

The case involves Subhash Verma, a property dealer, who appealed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal had reversed the decision of the CIT(A), which had deleted an addition of Rs.5,68,000 concerning the cost of construction not reflected in the books of account for the block period from 1989-90 to 1998-99. The Tribunal's decision was based on various documents seized during a search, including a copy of a judgment from a Civil Judge, which indicated undisclosed constructions. The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal's findings and noting that the Tribunal's conclusions were based on substantial evidence, including the condition of the constructions and materials used, which were not disclosed by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 812700 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY BANSAL; SHAVETA MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Assessment; Block period; Cost of construction; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Undisclosed income
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.175 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.7.2010 Subhash Verma. -----Appellant. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shaveta Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.I.T.(SS).A.No.552/Del. of 2003(Block Period: 1989-90 to 1998-99, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the Tribunal acted illegally and perversely in reversing the order of the CIT(A) whereby the latter had deleted the addition of Rs.5,68,000/- in respect of construction? I.T.A. No.175 of 2010 (ii) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law as well as on facts in recording its conclusion based on irrelevant findings and in ignoring uncontroverted relevant material on record? (iii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is perverse and a result of non application of mind and misreading of evidence on record?” 2. The Assessee is a property dealer. On search of his premises, various documents were found depicting undisclosed income of the Assessee. During assessment for the block period in question, additions were made on account of estimated commission income besides properties of the assessee. The Assessing Officer added cost of construction which was not reflected in the books of account. The same was accepted by the CIT(A) but was reversed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held:- “49. Apropos Ground No.6 i.e. cost of construction, AO from the material seized during the course of search including copy of judgment of Civil Judge i.e. Document No.A-14 held that the assessee has constructed six rooms for his residential purposes and five shops, the fact is not denied by the assessee. The claim is that the six rooms were purchased along with the plot in weak condition and five shops are temporary structures. In our view, the assessee’s reply is not substantiated, a copy of contractor Bhim Singh is found during the course of search along with various other bills etc. suggesting purchase of building 2 I.T.A. No.175 of 2010 material. The plea that six rooms were bought along with plot is not worthy of acceptance as the sale deed clearly indicates that these rooms were in “dilapidated conditions”. Similarly, Civil Judge record indicates pucca construction whereas assessee on oral argument contends it to be temporary structures because of HUDA policy, which cannot be accepted. In our view, as this construction of pucca house and shops was not disclosed, CIT(A) was not correct in deleting addition of Rs.5,68,000/- in respect of construction.....” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the Assessee. 4. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of additions, not being perverse, no substantial question of law arise. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 22, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3 "