Smt. Manju Devi, v. DCIT,

CO 12/PAT/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1224323 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AGIPD7812K
Bench Patna
Appeal Number CO 12/PAT/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Manju Devi,
Respondent DCIT,
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 23-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 23-02-2012
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 28-07-2010
Judgment Text
IT(SS)A NOS.24&31/PAT/2010 & CO 12PAT/2010 SMT. MANJU DEVI MUZAFFARPUR 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH PATNA BEFORE: SHRI B.R. MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 24 / PATNA / 20 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05 SMT. MANJU DEVI MUZAFFARPUR VS. ACI T CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 PATNA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AGIPD 7812K IT(SS)A NO.31/PATNA/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05 DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 PATNA VS. SMT. MANJU DEVI MUZAFFARPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.12/PATNA/2010 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.31/PATNA/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05 SMT. MANJU DEVI MUZAFFARPUR VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 PATNA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI L.N. RASTOGI SR. ADV. & SH. G.S. PRASAD ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AJAY KUMAR CIT(DR) DATE OF HEAR I NG: 23 .02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 .02.2012 ORDER PER B.R. MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 12 .3.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ASSESSEES GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ACI T CENTRAL RANGE 2 PATNA AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A)-I PATNA ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FACTS OF THE CAS E. IT(SS)A NOS.24&31/PAT/2010 & CO 12PAT/2010 SMT. MANJU DEVI MUZAFFARPUR 2 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I PATNA HAS ERRED IN MAINTA INING THE ADDITION OF RS.9 72 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. 3. FOR THAT THE COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE LD. CI T(A) THAT NO DIRECT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF PURCHASE OF G OLD ORNAMENTS BY WAY OF ANY SALE BILL ETC WAS FURNISHED AND NO BALAN CE SHEET WAS FOUND ALONG WITH RETURN FILED U/S 139 AND THE BALANCE TH AT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN U/S 153A CANNOT BE RELIED ON IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS U/S 153A WAS AS SIMILAR AS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 139 AN D AS SUCH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) WERE D ULY BOUND TO VERIFY THE BALANCE SHEET CAPITAL A/C AND CASH A/C AND TO POINT OUT DISCREPANCIES IF ANY FOUND. 4. FOR THAT OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT MERE ME NTION OF THE ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY IN THE BALANCE SHEET WITHO UT ANY CORROBORATING EVIDENCE CANNOT BE TREATED AS SUFFICIENT DISCHARGE OF THE ONUS PLACED ON THE APPELLANT; IS ALSO UNKIND AND PERVERSE IT I S SUBMITTED THAT FROM PERUSAL OF THE CASH A/C BALANCE SHEET IT WOULD APP EAR THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS AND THE NAME OF PERSON FROM W HOM THE ORNAMENTS WERE PURCHASED AND DIFFERENT DATES OF PAY MENTS WERE MENTIONED AND EXPLAINED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T(A) IS MISCONCEIVED AND MISLEADING. 5. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT WH ILE PASSING APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 THE ENTIRE ADD ITION HAVING BEEN DELETED WITH A FINDING THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT RAISED ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CASH FLOW ACCOUNT OR IDENTIF IED ANY DISCREPANCY THEREIN THE TREATMENT OF ANY AMOUNT REFLECTED IN TH E SAID ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED THEREIN THE ADDITION IS UNWARRANTED AND THEREFORE DELETED BUT IN THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ADDITION AS UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY WAS MAINTAINED . 6. FOR THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS MADE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS .11 79 791/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AS PER DEPARTMENTA L VALUE AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY FOUND IN LOCKERS A S WELL AS IN HOUSE AND ALSO WHICH WAS ALREADY DECLARED IN THE W.T. RET URNS WHILE PASSING THE APPELLATE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE VALUE OF ORNAMENTS DECLARED UNDER WEALTH TAX RETURN WHICH WAS VALUED A T RS. (1 71 024 + 1 82 306) TOTAL OF RS.3 53 330/- IF THE SAME HAS BE EN DELETED THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AT RS. (11 79 791 3 53 330) RS.8 26 461/- AND NOT RS.9 72 000/- AS CONCLUDED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. 7. FOR THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE CASE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COURTS BELOW IS EXORBITANTLY HIGH PITCHED AND EXCESSIVE AND THE ADDITION MADE AND MAINTAINED IS FIT TO BE DELETED AND APPEAL ALLOWED IN FULL. IT(SS)A NOS.24&31/PAT/2010 & CO 12PAT/2010 SMT. MANJU DEVI MUZAFFARPUR 3 DEPARTMENTS GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I PATNA HAS ERRED IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.12 52 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURPOS E OF LANDED PROPERTY ESP. WHEN THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH THAT THE INVEST MENTS IN PROPERTY WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A0 HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE FACT THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE BALANC E SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE LACKS EVEN AN IOTA OF AUTHENTICITY ESP. W HEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCH ASE OF JEWELLERY WORTH RS.9 72 000/- WHICH FORMS ON ESSENTIAL PART OF THE SAID BALANCE SHEET. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE FACT THAT WHEN THE SO-CALLED ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE STAFFS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WERE MADE THROUGH BANK THAT IS WHEN THE ENTIRE TR ANSACTION WAS IN CASH THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES THAT IF TH E SEARCH HAD NOT BEEN CONDUCTED THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT HAVE DISCLOSED HER INVESTMENT IN LANDED PROPERTY WEIGHS HEARING AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE. THUS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING INVESTMENT IN LAND. 4. FOR THAT THE DEPARTMENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD MODIFY AND AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION IN T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON TH E ISSUES WHICH ARE DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPEAL. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH I N THE CASE BELONGS TO PRABHAT JARDA GROUP ON 13.1.2004. A LARGE NUMBER O F PREMISES OWNED BY THE VARIOUS COMPANIES AND FIRM FLOATED BY THIS GRO UP AS WELL AS THE PREMISES OF THE DIRECTORS PARTNERS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS LOCATED AT DELHI AND NOIDA WERE ALSO COVERED U/S 132. SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT SIMULTANEOUSLY IN SOME OF THE PREMISES ON THE S AME DATE. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS THE WIFE OF SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR A RYA AND SEARCH OPERATION WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT IN THE RESIDENTIAL P REMISES OF SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR ARYA AND CERTAIN PAPERS/DOCUMENTS FOUND DURIN G SEARCH WERE SEIZED IT(SS)A NOS.24&31/PAT/2010 & CO 12PAT/2010 SMT. MANJU DEVI MUZAFFARPUR 4 AND INVENTORISED. THE ASSESSEES BANK LOCKER MAINT AINED IN P&B WAS ALSO SUBJECTED TO SEARCH U/S 132(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T ON 9.2.2004. 5. PURSUANT THERETO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A WAS INITIATED INTERALIA IN THE CASE OF THIS ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE FILED A RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT ON 2.3.2006 DI SCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 60 400/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT ON 21.3.2006 TO SUBSTAN TIATE INVESTMENTS MADE IN JEWELLERY INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT GENUINENESS OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT O N THE GROUND THAT NO BALANCE SHEET WAS FILED ALONG WITH RETURNS AND ALSO NO SUPPORTING BILLS VOUCHERS EVIDENCES WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN R ESPECT TO INVESTMENTS MADE AND TO CORROBORATE THE SAME WITH THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. BEING AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY OF RS.9 72 000/- AS UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT BUT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.12 50 000/- MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IS D ELETED STATING THAT IF ANY DISCREPANCY WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEME NT/BALANCE SHEET THE ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BUT NO SUCH DEFECTS OR DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE A DDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BOTH THE PARTIE S ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED NOT TO ACCEPT THE CASH FLOW STATE MENT AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE OTHER HAND LD. D.R. SUBMITTED T HAT THE SAID CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE FAG END OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION I.E. FILED ON 21.3.2006 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER COULD NOT EXAMINE THE SAME AND MADE THE ASSESSMENT ON 27.3.2006. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT GET TIME TO C ONFRONT THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH WAS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON 21.3.2006 FOR THE FIRST TIME. LD. D.R. ALSO SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE IT(SS)A NOS.24&31/PAT/2010 & CO 12PAT/2010 SMT. MANJU DEVI MUZAFFARPUR 5 BALANCE SHEET ONLY AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AND NOT ALONG WITH THE RETURNS FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO SEARCH. LD . REPRESENTATIVES OF PARTIES CONCEDED THAT THERE WAS NO TIME WITH A.O. TO EXAMIN E THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED AND MATTER COULD BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS FRESH CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES INVOLV ED IN THESE APPEALS THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION. 7. WE CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMIS SIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH PARTIES CONSIDER THAT IT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUES DISPUTED BEFORE US IN THESE APPEALS AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING SUCH EVIDENCES AS MAY BE P LACED BEFORE HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS BY BO TH PARTIES AND RESTORE TO A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFT ER VERIFYING THE CONTENTS OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND CONSIDERING SUCH EVIDEN CES AS MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO S TATE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WILL GIVE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E. HENCE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY BOTH THE PARTIES I.E. ASSESSEE AS W ELL AS THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 8. IN VIEW OF ABOVE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS DEPARTMENT ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND WHEREAS CROSS OBJECTIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD FEBRUARY 2012 SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAH YA ) ( B.R. MITTAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS PATNA DATED 23 RD FEBRUARY 2012 IT(SS)A NOS.24&31/PAT/2010 & CO 12PAT/2010 SMT. MANJU DEVI MUZAFFARPUR 6 COPY TO 1 SMT. MANJU DEVI C/O M/S. RATNA ZARDA SUPPLY CO. N EW AREA SIKANDERPUR MUZAFFARPUR 2 ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE3 - 2 PATNA 3 CIT PATNA 4 THE CIT (A) - I PATNA 5 THE DR ITAT PATNA 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA