ITO, Agra v. Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Agra

ITA 193/AGR/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 19320314 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AFDPG2324K
Bench Agra
Appeal Number ITA 193/AGR/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Agra
Respondent Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Agra
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 10-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 08-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 08-03-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 06-05-2009
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 ITA NO.193/AGR/2009 ASST. YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3) VS. SHRI PANKAJ GUP TA AGRA. 120 NORTH VIJAY NAGAR COLONY AGRA. (PAN : AFDPG 2324 K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : APPLICATION REJECTED RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TUSHAR BANSAL C.A. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU J.M. : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 03.03.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1(A) THAT THE CIT(APPEALS)-I AGRA HAS ERRED IN LA W IN DELETING ADDITION OF ` 60 00 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPALAINED INVESTM ENT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES SIMPLY RELYING ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE SAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM HIM; 1(B) THAT THE CIT(APPEALS)-I AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AFORESAID ADDITION BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE (WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O.) WITHOUT ALLOWING THE A.O. A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AS PROVIDED IN RULE 46A(3) O F IT RULES 1962; 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR DELETE OR ALTER OR MODIFY ANY ONE OR MORE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL DURING THE APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I AGRA BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.10.2006 WHICH WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUI NG NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) ON 28.06.2007 . IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (A.R.) OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED HIS REPLY EXPLAINING THE INVESTMENT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FEELING DISSATISFIE D WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS INCLUDING THE ADDITION IN DI SPUTE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 20.11.2008. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO VIDE T HE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.03.2009 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. HENCE THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. 3. THE AFORESAID CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE US ON 23.02.20011 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 08.03.2011 IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES. BUT TODAY SHRI MANAS MEHROTRA ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SR. D.R . ITAT AGRA) HAS FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 07.03.2011 IN WHICH HE HAS STATED THAT AT PRE SENT HE IS HOLDING CHARGES OF THREE RANGES SITUATED AT AGRA JHANSI AND FIROZABAD AND IN ORDER TO ATTEND TO SOME URGENT WORK HE IS PRESENTLY IN FIROZABAD ON AN OFFICIAL TOUR AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF 3 WEEKS. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT SHRI MANAS MEHROTRA ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (SR. D.R. I.T.A.T. AGRA BENCH) IS GENERALLY FILING APPLICATIONS FOR ADJOURNMENTS IN E ACH AND EVERY CASES AND NOT INTERESTED TO ARGUE THE MATTERS FIXED BEFORE THIS BENCH. KEEPING IN VI EW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE REASONS MENTIONED BY THE SR. D .R. FOR ADJOURNMENT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REASONS MENTIONED BY THE SR .D.R. ARE NOT PLAUSIBLE ONE TO ADJOURN THE MATTER IN 3 DISPUTE. THEREFORE WE REJECT THE ADJOURNMENT APPL ICATION AND DECIDE THE MATTER EX-PARTE AFTER HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. AT THE TIME OF HARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND STATED THAT THE L D. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 60 00 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE A ND THOROUGHLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ESPECIALLY THE IM PUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN DISPUTE BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT OF ` 30 00 000/- IN RBI BOND BY ISSUING A CHEQUE OUT OF HIS CAPITAL IN FIRM M/S. PANKAJ INTERNATIONAL IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO PRODUCED COPY OF ACCOUNT FROM WHICH ` 30 00 000/- HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN ON 31.01.2006. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE INVESTMENTS OF ` 30 00 000/- WHICH IS WRONG AS MENTIONED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY STATING THAT RBI BONDS CANNO T BE PURCHASED DIRECTLY FROM RBI WHICH CAN BE PURCHASED FROM ANY AGENCY ONLY. THEREFORE THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM RBI AND THE AGENCY CANNOT BE TREATED AS SEPARATE INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISCLOSED THE INVESTMENT OF ` 30 00 000/- IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH HE H AS FILED A COPY OF HIS ACCOUNT IN THE FIRM M/S. PANKAJ INTERNATIONAL SHOWING DEBIT OF ` 30 00 000/- ON 31.01.2006 AND 4 PHOTOCOPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE FIRM M/S. PANKAJ INTERNATIONAL WITH CANARA BANK SHOWING DEBIT OF ` 30 00 000/- ON 02.02.2006. AFTER CONSIDERING THE A FORESAID EVIDENCES THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIO N IN DISPUTE BY HOLDING THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM RBI AND THEI R AGENCY I.E. ICICI BANK FOR PURCHASE OF RBI BONDS OF ` 30 00 000/- IS ONE AND THE SAME BUT WAS ERRONEOUSLY CONSTRUED AS TWO SEPARATE INVESTMENTS OF ` 30 00 000/- EACH. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y HAS ALSO APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT OF ` 30 00 000/- HAS DULY BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE REASONING MENTIONED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN DELETING THE ADDITION IN DIS PUTE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORD ER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DISMISSI NG THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.03.2011 ). SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: AGRA DATE: 10 TH MARCH 2011 PBN/* 5 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