THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JDR V. SH LEKH RAJ DHUNNA

ITA/126/2003

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II against Lekh Raj Dhunna, where the primary issue was the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- to the assessee's income as commission income from M/s P.M.S. Enterprises, Phagwara. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer following a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the assessee admitted to earning commission but did not disclose it in his tax returns. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, but the Tribunal later deleted it, leading to the present appeal by the revenue. The High Court, referencing Sections 132(4) and 132(4A), concluded that the assessee's admission and the documents seized during the search justified the addition, and the onus was on the assessee to rebut the presumptions, which he failed to do.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 741014 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. P.R. Metrani (HUF), Daya Chand v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pushkar Narain Sarraf v. Commissioner of Income-Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AKSHAY BHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEK SETHI
• Keywords: Income from commission; Presumption of income; Rebuttable presumption; Search and seizure
• Section: 68; 132(4); 132(4A)

Judgement Text

"ITA No. 126 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 126 of 2003 Date of Decision: 29.9.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II ....Appellant. Versus Lekh Raj Dhunna ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 126 and 127 of 2003 as common question of law and facts are involved therein. For brevity, the facts are being taken from ITA No. 126 of 2003. 2. This appeal was admitted on January 22, 2004 for determination of the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Tribunal was right in law in ignoring the facts on records as also the provisions of sections 132(4) & 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and holding that the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission income and confirmed by the Commissioner of ITA No. 126 of 2003 -2- Income-tax (Appeals) was without any basis?” 3. Facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal, as narrated therein, are that the search was conducted at the residence of the assessee on 15.4.1993. The assessee being individual filed his return on 28.3.1994 declaring an income of Rs.2,00,000/-. The assessment was completed on 31.3.1999 (Annexure A) by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the income was assessed at Rs.13,02,440/- by making addition of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of income from commission on sales. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short “the CIT (A)”] vide order dated 20.12.1999 upheld the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. Still feeling aggrieved, the assessee approached the Tribunal who vide order dated 28.2.2003 deleted the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- holding that there was no evidence to conclude that the assessee had actually earned the commission on sale. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee during the course of search operation on 15.4.1993 had made a statement under Section 132(4) of the Act admitting that he was selling agent of M/s P.M.S. Enterprises Phagwara and had been getting commission @ 2% on sales effected through him. According to the learned counsel, in the light of statement of the assessee under Section 132(4), the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of commission received from M/s P.M.S. Enterprises calculating by taking 2% of Rs.4,92,03,005/-, i.e. ITA No. 126 of 2003 -3- Rs.9,84,060.10, and giving deduction of Rs.84060.10 on account of expenses incurred. He further submitted that the total sales of Rs.4,92,03,005/- is discernible from the documents, details of which are as under:- “Annexure Amount of sale (in Rs.) A-1 45,47,388/- A-2 1,19,26,694/- A-3 1,07,301/- A-4 2,55,15,434/- A-5 22,67,750/- A-6 48,38,438/- Total 4,92,03,005/-” 6. It was further urged that the said documents belong to the assessee in view of provisions of Section 132(4A) of the Act as the same were seized during the course of the search from the premises of the assessee. Learned counsel contended that the assessment order was rightly upheld by the CIT(A) but the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of Income from commission on sales received from M/s PMS Enterprises, Phagwara. 7. Controverting the above submission, learned counsel for the assessee argued that the revenue had failed to bring any material on record which could have substantiated their plea that the assessee had earned commission on sales from M/s P.M.S. Enterprises, Phagwara. In the absence of any tangible evidence produced by the department, the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- was not justified. The order of the Tribunal was supported by the learned counsel for the assessee. ITA No. 126 of 2003 -4- 8. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission income on the basis of admission of the assessee in his statement under Section 132(4) of the Act which was confirmed by the CIT (A) on appeal, was sustainable. 9. It would be advantageous to view provisions which are relevant and Section 132(4) reads thus:- “132(4) The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the examination of any person under this sub-section may be not merely in respect of any books of account, other documents or assets found as a result of the search, but also in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) or under this Act. 10. Sub-section (4) of Section 132 enables the authorized ITA No. 126 of 2003 -5- officer to record on oath the statement of the persons who are found to be in possession or control of article or thing at the time of search. Under this provision, the Assessing Officer is empowered to use such statement against the assessee and base the assessment thereon. However, where the assessee is able to establish that the statement so made was not voluntary but was a result of coercion or inducement, the same may not be acted upon. The onus lies very heavy upon the assessee in such circumstances to prove such coercion or inducement. Further, the assessee can produce evidence to rebut the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Explanation inserted by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1.4.1989 permits the examination of the persons under sub-section (4) not only in relation to the books of account, other documents or assets found as a result of search but also on any other matter relevant for any proceedings under this Act or the Income Tax Act, 1922. 11. Sub-section (4A) of Section 132 raises certain presumptions. It reads as under:- 4(A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; ITA No. 126 of 2003 -6- (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested.” 12. Sub-section (4A) was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 w.e.f. 1.10.1975 and it enacts certain presumptions. According to it, the books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles seized from the possession of a person, shall be presumed to belong to such person in whose possession or control they are found during the search. A similar presumption is raised regarding the truthfulness of the contents of the books of accounts which are found. Presumption also arises in respect of signatures and every other part of the books of account to be in the handwriting of the person by whom it is purported to have been written. Similarly, if they are stamped, executed or attested, a presumption may be made to be duly stamped and executed or attested by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed or attested. ITA No. 126 of 2003 -7- The aforesaid presumptions are rebuttable in nature and their strength is dependent upon the circumstances of each case. Further, the words used in this sub-section are “may be presumed” which are in contradistinction to the words “shall presume” or “conclusive proof”. 13. Now, the question that would require an answer would be whether the presumption under Section 132(4A) can be used for framing regular assessment. 14. Karnataka High Court in CIT v. P.R. Metrani (HUF), [2001] 251 ITR 244 had laid down in clear terms that the presumption under sub-section (4A) of Section 132 cannot be restricted for passing an order under Section 132(5) only. It further recorded that the presumptive value is total in so far as Section 132(5) is concerned, but in respect of other proceedings, the presumption is rebuttable. However, the Delhi High Court in Daya Chand v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 250 ITR 327 and Allahabad High Court in Pushkar Narain Sarraf v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [1990] 183 ITR 388 have subscribed a different view. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Karnataka High Court as to accord any other meaning to the aforesaid provision would be against the legislative intent as sub-section (5) of Section 132 had been omitted by Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.6.2002 whereas sub-section (4A) of Section 132 still continues on the statute book. 15. Having crystalized legal position, it is now apt to delve on the factual situation of the present case. It is not in dispute that the assessee had made a statement under Section 132(4) of the Act whereby a surrender of Rs.2,00,000/- was made. Besides this, the ITA No. 126 of 2003 -8- assessee had admitted that he had earned commission from M/s PMS Enterprises, Phagwara which was not disclosed in the return filed by him. The relevant portion of the statement reads as follows:- “I am selling agent of M/S PMS Enterprises, Railway Road, Phagwara and get commission at the rate of 2% on the sales effected through me. I have no other source of income except interest from firm on deposit with the firm. My wife is a housewife and does tailoring work on a very small scale.” 16. Further, during search, certain sale documents were seized which bore the signatures of the assessee as well. The said documents depicted total sales of Rs.4,92,03,005/- as noticed earlier. 17. Thus, in view of sub-sections (4) and (4A) of Section 132 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in drawing presumption against the assessee and had made addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in his income under Section 68 of the Act. The onus was upon the assessee to have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he had failed to displace. The assessee retracted from the said statement vide letters dated 24.11.1998 and 11.3.1999 during the course of assessment proceedings. However, no value could be attached thereto in the present case. In case the statement which was made by the assessee at the time of search and seizure was under pressure or due to coercion, the assessee could have retracted from the same at the earliest. No plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier. In such a situation, the authenticity of the statement by virtue of which surrender ITA No. 126 of 2003 -9- had been made at the time of search cannot be held to be bad. The Tribunal, thus, erred in concluding otherwise. The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in reversing the order of the Assessing Officer which was affirmed by the CIT(A) also. 18. In view of the above, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 19. The appeal stands allowed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 29, 2010 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs JUDGE ITA No. 126 of 2003 -10- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 127 of 2003 Date of Decision: 29.9.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II ....Appellant. Versus Lekh Raj Dhunna ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 126 of 2003 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II v. Lekh Raj Dhunna). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 29, 2010 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs JUDGE "