Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Chhatarpur v. DCIT, Range-1, Gwalior

CO 23/AGR/2006 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2320323 RSA 2006
Assessee PAN GHING4823G
Bench Agra
Appeal Number CO 23/AGR/2006
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Chhatarpur
Respondent DCIT, Range-1, Gwalior
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 25-02-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 25-02-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 10-02-2011
Next Hearing Date 10-02-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 16-05-2006
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH AGRA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.09/AGR/2003 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1989 TO 18.01.2000 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI SANJAY K UMAR AGRAWAL RANGE-I GWALIOR. C/O.M/S CHOUDHARY LAXMNDAS S ARAF CHOWK BAZAR CHHATARPUR (M.P.) (PAN : S-732). C.O. NO.23/AGR/2006 (IN IT(SS)A NO.09/AGR/2003) BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1989 TO 18.01.2000 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C/O. M/S CHOUDHARY LAXMNDAS SARAF RANGE-I GWALI OR. CHOWK BAZAR CHHATARPUR (M.P.) (PAN : S-732). (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) REVENUE BY : SHRI HOMI RAJVANSH CIT D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.N. PUROHIT ADVOCATE ORDER PER BENCH : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 14.02.2003. 2. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS :- 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 56 610/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD 1-4-1999 TO 18-1-2 000. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 47 943/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 25 200/- ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SILVER ARTICLES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 31 600/- ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STDR. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE PLEASE BE SET ASIDE AS IT IS BAD IN LAW ON THE FACTS OF THE C ASE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.08.2001 DECLARING INCOME AT ` NIL. THE SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AS WELL AS AT TH E BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONDUCTED ON 19.01.2000 AND 20.01.2000 AND CASH OF ` 1 14 593/- WAS FOUND FROM HIS BED ROOM. THE GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIGHING 763 GMS. WERE FOUND FRO M RESIDENCE AND LOCKER NO.62 AT S.B.I. CHHATARPUR VALUING AT ` 2 53 413/- AND SILVER ARTICLES WEIGHING 4823 GMS. VALUING AT ` 27 010/- WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ALONG WITH S OME OTHER INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS ALSO FOUND AND SEIZED BY THE SEARCH PARTIES. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) AND 143(2) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 24.12.200 1 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 04.01.2002. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS LD. A.R. APPEARED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM TIME TO TIME AND ALSO FILED WRITTEN REPLY IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK ON 04.01.2002. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131(1) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) ON 11.01.2002. AFTER ADOPTING THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDUR E UNDER LAW THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 30.01.2002 UNDER SECTION 158BC(C) OF THE ACT AND MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS INCLUDING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. AGGRIEVED BY TH E SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE 3 LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.02.2003 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION O F ` 90 500/- AND THE REMAINING ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY HIM BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED T HE AFORESAID CROSS OBJECTION AND FOR THE ADDITIONS DELETED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND STATED THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.01.2002 WHICH HAS WRONGLY BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE DEPARTMENT MAY BE ALLOWED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE CONFIRMED. 5. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND STATED THAT THE TAX E FFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS LESS THAN ` 2 00 000/- AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE INSTRUCTION DATE D 27.03.2000 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSE D. IN THE ALTERNATIVE HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BU T AS REGARDS TO THE CROSS OBJECTION HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF ` 90 500/- WHICH HAS WRONGLY BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND HE REQUESTED THAT ADDITION OF ` 90 500/- MAY BE DELETED BY ACCEPTING THE CROSS OBJ ECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY OPPOS ED THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL 4 FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE CROSS OBJECTION FOR DELETIO N OF ADDITION OF ` 90 500/- AND RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE INSTRUCTION OF C.B.D.T. AND W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE ARE GROUP OF CASES WHERE THE INSTRUCTION IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE REFORE THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE SAME IS REJECTED. 7. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF ` 56 610/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.1999 TO 18.01.2000 WHIC H HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT O F HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJARAM KULWANTRAI VS. ACIT 227 ITR 18 7 (P&H) AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT (S UPRA). THEREFORE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED. 8. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF ` 47 943/- ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH AND THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY HAS DELETED THE SAME. AFTER PERUSING THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY QUOTED TWO FIGURES OF CASH AND INVESTMENT I N THE CASE OF LAXMAN DAS SARAF FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO VERIFIED THE SAME. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.2. 5 9. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF ` 25 200/- ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SILVER ARTICLES WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS APPRECIATED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NEELKANT AGRAWAL WHO CONFIRMED TH AT HE HAS GIVEN 15 TOLA GOLD ORNAMENTS AND 4 KGS. SILVER ORNAMENTS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AS WELL AS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AFTER PERUS ING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE AND WE CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE BY DISMISSING THE GROUND NO.3. 10. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF ` 31 600/- ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STDRS. IN THE NAME OF KM . NIKITA AND DELETED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E REGARDING THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE IS THAT THESE STDRS. ARE FULLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY ARTI DEVI WHICH WAS FOUND AND SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN ANNEXURE A-1/5. THESE TWO STDRS. AMOUNTING TO ` 19 000/- AND ` 12 600/- ARE ALSO PART OF OPENING CAPITAL WHICH HA S BEEN FULLY EXAMINED AND APPRECIATED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY DELETING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE REASONING MENTIONED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DELETING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY. WE CONFIRM THE SAME BY DISMISSING GROUND NO.4. 11. AS REGARDS TO THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF ` 90 500/- BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILE D ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE REVENUE 6 AUTHORITIES FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE . THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO STATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 90 500/- WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WE REJECT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DELETING THE SAME AND DISMISS THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE PRESENT CROSS OBJECTION. 12. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO.2 OF THE CROSS OBJECTIO N IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED THE ADDITIONS DELETED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE IMPUGNED ORDER THEREFORE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GR OUND NO.2 HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.02.2011) SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: AGRA DATE: 25 TH FEBRUARY 2011 PBN/* 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 5. DR ITAT AGRA BENCH AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA TRUE COPY