Smt. Maninder Bedi, New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2399/DEL/2017 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 239920114 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AAHPB1620Q
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2399/DEL/2017
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Maninder Bedi, New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 14-11-2019
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 21-04-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2399/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SMT. MANINDER BEDI C/O-R.S. AHUJA & CO. C-353 DEFENCE COLONY NEW DELHI VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-11 NEW DELHI PAN :AAHPB1620Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST O RDER DATED 23.02.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS)-24 NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: (A) THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED DCIT & THE CIT(A) ERRED IN: I) MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.2 34 43 192/- II) MAKING AN ADDITION IN SPITE OF IT NOT PERTAINI NG TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. (B) THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR AME ND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE HEARING. APPELLANT BY SHRI R.S. AHUJA CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI F.R. MEENA SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 04.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.11.2019 2 ITA NO.2399/DEL/2017 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 21/03/2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E OF 1 99 02 830/-. THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS C OMPLETED ON 27/03/2014 AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF 2 34 43 192/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF OPENING AMOUNT OF CAPITAL OF T HE ASSESSEE SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS AS ON 31/03/2 011 (RS.7 06 62 708/-) AND THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL (RS.4 72 19 516/-) SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT OF THE AF FAIRS AS ON 31/03/2010. ON FURTHER APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) U PHELD THE ADDITION. 3. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER-BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 13 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF TULIP TELECOM P. LTD. AND DUE TO BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING OF THE COMPANY AND SUBSTANTIAL REDUCT ION IN STAFF LOOKING AFTER FINANCIAL RECORDS HE COULD NOT REPRE SENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FILE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND T HEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION RELYING ON INCORREC T STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS. THE LD. COUNSEL GIVEN AN UNDERTAKING THAT ALL THE RELEVANT STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR AS WELL AS CURRENT YEAR ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS VOUCHERS ETC IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE CAPITAL AND OTHER ENTRIES OF INVESTMENTS/EXPENDITURE ETC. APPEARING THEREIN SHALL BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASE THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE DR THOUGH RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES COULD NOT CONTROVERT THAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE NEED EXA MINATION AFRESH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3 ITA NO.2399/DEL/2017 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING ANOTHER BALANCE SHEET BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING RECONCILIATION OF TH E OPENING CAPITAL OF REPORTED IN STATEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND CLOSING CAPITAL OF THE STATEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF PRECEDING YEAR OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.3.2 (I) .. (II) THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO FILE ANOTHER BALANCE-S HEET FOR THAT PERIOD WHERE THE CLOSING BALANCE IS MUCH HIGHER THAN RS.4 72 19 516/-. HOWEVER THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THIS BALANCE SHEET HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2010-11 NOR COULD IT BE EXPLAINED AS TO HOW BALANCE SHEET RELIED UPON BY TH E A.O. WHICH WAS CLEARLY SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2010-11 WAS INCORRE CT. THEREFORE THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS REJECTED. THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.2 34 43 192/- CONSTITUTES UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT. 6. IN OUR OPINION THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) O F OUTRIGHTLY REJECTION OF FRESH/ANOTHER BALANCESHEET FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRANSA CTIONS REPORTED THEREIN IS NOT JUSTIFIED BEING AGAINST THE PRINCIPL E OF THE NATURAL JUSTICE. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDING BALANCE SHEET ARE PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO S UBSTANTIATE THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT DURING THE PRECE DING YEAR AS WELL AS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE THEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS REQUIRED TO L OOK INTO THE 4 ITA NO.2399/DEL/2017 AMENDED BALANCE-SHEET FILED BEFORE HIM WHICH WAS C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CORRECT ONE. 7. THE ALTERNATIVE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS ALSO REJECTED BY TH E LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.3.2. (I) (II) . (III) THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ALTE RNATIVE THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE FOR A.Y. 2011-12. AT BE ST IT COULD BE MADE ONLY FOR A.Y. 2010-11. I HAVE CONSIDE RED THIS SUBMISSION AND I FIND IT UNACCEPTABLE. THE CL OSING BALANCE FIGURE OF RS.4 72 19 516/- WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AS FOR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 20 10-11 AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. THE APPELLANT IS NOW STOPPED FROM PLEADING THAT THIS WAS NOT THE CORRECT FIGURE AS ON 31.03.2010. THE MATTER HAS ATTAINED QUIETUS A ND THE APPELLANT IS BOUND NOW TO THAT FIGURE AS ON 31.03.2010. IT FOLLOWS THAT THE UNEXPLAINED INCREAS E IN CAPITAL AS ON 01.04.2011 AMOUNTS TO AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT APPEARING ON 01.01.2010 WHICH PERTAINS T O A.Y. 2011-12. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 THE PRIMARY ONUS IS SQUARELY O N THE APPELLANT TO PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. UNLESS THE APPELLANT DISCHARGES THIS ONUS THE BURDEN OF PROOF CANNOT BE SHIFTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON ITS PART THE APPELLAN T HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EXPLANATION MUST LESS A SATISFACTORY ONE OR ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT HA VE TO BE REJECTED. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS CONFIRME D. 8. IN VIEW OF THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE UNDE RTAKING GIVEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODU CING ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLA IM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTOR E THE ISSUE TO THE 5 ITA NO.2399/DEL/2017 FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH. THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS REPORTED IN THE FRESH/ANOTHER BALANCE-SHEET ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES LIKE BANK ACCOUNT TRANSACTION OR PROOF OF INCOME O R EXPENDITURE ETC. IN ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTION REPORTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SHALL BE FREE TO TAKE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFO RDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE GROUND OF THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH NOVEMBER 2019. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14 TH NOVEMBER 2019. RK/-(D.T.D.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI