ITO, New Delhi v. Sh. Gulshan Chadha, New Delhi

ITA 2375/DEL/2010 | 1995-1996
Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 237520114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN EDFOR4000S
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2375/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant ITO, New Delhi
Respondent Sh. Gulshan Chadha, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 16-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 10-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 10-12-2010
Assessment Year 1995-1996
Appeal Filed On 19-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA HONBLE VICE PRESI DENT AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2375/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1995-96 ITO WARD 19 (2) NEW DELHI. VS. GULSHAN CHADHA B-1/74 ASHOK VIHAR PHASE II NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.V. TANEJA FCA REVENUE BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTY SR. DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 15 TH MARCH 2010 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS PLE ADED THAT LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F ` 4 LAC. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETU RN OF INCOME ON 12 TH FEBRUARY 1996 DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` 29 190/-. HE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 3 LAC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED AN INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING FARIDABAD EXHIBITING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED AN ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRY FROM SHRI ANAND PRAKASH PROPRIETOR M/S JAI TRADING CO. HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT. AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 147 WAS FRAMED O N 28 TH MARCH 2003 WHEREBY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINE D AT ` 9 34 274/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MAINLY MADE THREE ADDITIONS. AN ITA NO.2375/DEL/2010 2 APPEAL TO THE CIT (A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE BOOK THE DISPUTES IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO. 2244/DEL/2004. THE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF RE VENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 26 TH JULY 2007. THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-AD JUDICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFRAMED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DAT ED 18.12.20089 AND HE AGAIN MADE THE ADDITIONS. AS FAR AS THE FIRST ADDITION OF ` 4 LAC IS CONCERNED IT HAS BEEN ADDED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ALLEGED TO HAVE SOLD HIS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO M/S JAI TRADING CO. WHICH I S A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF SHRI ANAND PRAKASH. SHRI ANAND PRAKASH HA S DISCLOSED TO THE INVESTIGATION WING THAT HE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANYTH ING FROM THE ASSESSEE AND HE GAVE AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS AGRICUL TURAL INCOME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS PRODUCED THE DETAI LS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE REQ UESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI ANAND PRAKASH WHO HAS DENIED PURCHASING OF THE AGRICUL TURAL PRODUCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH ACCO UNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A SUM OF ` 1 LAC FOR H IRING LABOUR ETC. AND THUS SHOWN NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 3 LAC. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ACCEPTED THIS CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS VERIFIED THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. AC CORDING TO LD. CIT (A) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSESSING OF FICER AS AGAINST THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES WE HA VE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. ON PERUSAL OF THE REC ORD WE FIND THAT ON PAGE NOS.15 TO 59 THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD COPI ES OF THE SALE DEED INDICATING THE OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND. SHRI GULSHAN CHADHA IN HIS CAPACITY AS A DIRECTOR OF M/S PHARMA PR OMOTER ITA NO.2375/DEL/2010 3 HARYANA PISTONS LIMITED HAD PURCHASED 9 KANAL 13 MAR LAS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 26 TH FEBRUARY 1991 WITHIN THE REVENUE STATE OF VILLAGE SALHAWAS. SIMILARLY 71 KANAL 15 MARLAS OF LAND WITHIN THE SAME REVENUE STATE HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 18 LAC. THE COPIES OF THE MUTATIO NS DEMONSTRATING THE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN THE LAND REVENUE RECORD MAINTAINED BY THE REVENUE OFFICIALS UNDER THE PUNJAB LAND REVEN UE ACT HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS ON THE ONE HAND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUFFICIENT AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS OWNED B Y HIM AND THE FIRM. HE HAS CARRIED OUT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND SOLD THE CROP TO M/S JAI TRADING CO. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ONLY EVIDEN CE CONSIDERED FOR BELYING THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THE ALLEGED STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND PRAKASH PROPRIETOR O F M/S JAI TRADING CO. BEFORE INVESTIGATION WING. IN SPITE OF REPEATED REQUESTS OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI ANAND PRAKASH. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THIS PURPOSE BUT THE A SSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF CONDUCTING PROPER INQUIRY REPEATED HIS ASSESSM ENT ORDER MADE AT THE FIRST INSTANCE. THE EASIEST MODE FOR THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THIS ISSUE WOULD BE THAT HE SHOULD HAVE CA LLED FOR THE LAND REVENUE RECORD UNDER THE PUNJAB LAND REVENUE A CT I.E. COPIES OF JAMA BANDI AND KHASRA GIRDHAWARI. JAMA BANDI WOULD HAVE INDICATED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND AND THE MODE OF IRRIGATION ETC. THE KHASRA GIRDHAWARI WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THE CROPS SHOWN AND WHO HAD SHOWN CROPS. THESE TWO DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE CLINCHED THE ISSU E BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CALL FOR ANY OF THESE DOCUMENT S IN SPITE OF TWO ROUNDS OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE SIMPLY HARBOURED ON UNSUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATIO N WING FOR CHARGING THE ASSESSEE WITH TAX LIABILITY. THOUGH WE AR E NOT VERY MUCH CONVINCED WITH THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R DEMONSTRATING HIS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES BUT FOR TH E LAXITY OF THE ITA NO.2375/DEL/2010 4 ASSESSING OFFICER WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO SET ASIDE TH IS ISSUE AGAIN TO HIS FILE FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. THERE IS NO E VIDENCE POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISBELIEVE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E WHEREAS ON THE OTHER HAND THE SOME EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCE D BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE VERY CLINCHING ONE. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROUND NO.1. IT IS REJECTED. IN GROUND NO.2 THE G RIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 2 76 600/-. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE READ AS UNDER:- 5.3 GROUND NO.3 (IV): ADDITION OF RS.2 76 600/- THE A.O. ADDED THIS AMOUNT ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WHIC H IS LATER ON CLAIMED AS REFUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY . THE APPELLANT PLACED BEFORE ME (I) SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O. (II) ALLOTMENT ADVISES OF LUPIN LABORATORIES. (III) SHARE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY LUPIN LABORATORIES. THE APPELLANT APPLIED FOR 4000 SHARES OF M/S LUPIN LABORATORIES AND OUT OF THIS HE WAS ALLOTTED 300 SHARES. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.3 12 000/- (APPLICATION AMOUNT) AND RS.35 400/- (ALLOTMENT AMOUNT) I.E. RS.2 76 800/- WAS REFUNDED TO HIM BY REFUND ORDER NO.205640. BASED ON THE EVIDENCE FILED AND CONFIRMATION FROM LUPIN LABORATORI ES REGARDING REFUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY I AM IN CLINED TO AGREE WITH APPELLANT. THE ADDITION MADE IS THUS DELETED . 6. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THESE FINDINGS WE DO NOT SE E ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN IT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSE D ANYTHING. HE ONLY RELIED UPON HIS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LE ARNED CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED REFUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. CONFIRMATION FROM M/S LUPIN LABO RATORIES WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS R EJECTED. 7. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL THE GRIEVANCE OF T HE REVENUE IS THAT LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F ` 2 28 480/-. THE ITA NO.2375/DEL/2010 5 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A LOAN FROM SHRI J.D. GULATI IN EARLIER YEAR. HE HAS BEEN PAYING INT EREST ON SUCH LOAN AND THE INTEREST WAS ALLOWED TO HIM. ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON TH E GROUND THAT HE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPEND ITURE. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ELABORATELY AND HELD THAT IN THE PAST NO SUCH DOUBT WAS EVER RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON P ERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE. HE JUST OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT GENUINE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPRECIATED BY LEARNED CIT (A) WE DO NO T SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.12.20 10. SD/- SD/- [G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA] [RAJPAL YADAV] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 16.12.2010. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES