Mr. Rumel Singh, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 425/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 42520114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AZVPS2031B
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 425/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Mr. Rumel Singh, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 14-12-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 14-12-2011
Next Hearing Date 14-12-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 29-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NO. 425(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI RUMEL SINGH INC OME-TAX OFFICER 20-A GREEN MEADOWS VS. WARD 24(3 ) NEW DELHI. SATBARI MEHRAULLI NEW DELHI. PAN: AZVPS2031B ITA NO. 3997(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER R UMEL SINGH WARD 24(3) NEW DELHI. VS. 20-A GR EEN MEADOWS SATBARI MEHRAULLI NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK SR. D.R DATE OF HEARIN G: 14.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 14.12.2011. ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) X XIII NEW DELHI PASSED ON 18.11.2009 AND 22.06.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006-07 AND 2007- 08 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UP SIX GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF WHICH IS CONTAINED IN GROUND NO. 2(I). THE GROUND IS ITA NOS. 425 & 3997(DEL)/2010 2 THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 26 11 400/- MADE BY THE AO AS INCOME FROM UNDISC LOSED SOURCES. ON THE OTHER HAND THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN UP TWO SUBSTAN TIVE GROUNDS. GROUND NO. 2 CONTAINS THE MAIN GRIEVANCE THAT THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25 85 000/- BY IGNO RING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN GROUND NO. 1 IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE IS NOT COVERED IN THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE AO. 1.1 WE PROCEED WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE FIRST INSTANCE. 2. THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN ON 30.07.2006 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 26 73 200/- COMPRISING OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME OF RS. 26 11 400/- AND OTHER INCOME OF RS. 61 800/-. THIS RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 31.10.2006. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 17.07 .2007. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO TENDER EVIDENCE ABOUT THE NATURE OF INCOME OF RS. 26 11 400/- CLAI MED TO BE THE ITA NOS. 425 & 3997(DEL)/2010 3 AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SUBSTANTIATE THE QUANTUM THEREOF. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECEIVING IN COME IN CASH AND ALSO INCURRING EXPENSES IN CASH. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR BANK ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONT ENTION. IT IS MENTIONED THAT IT IS BEYOND IMAGINATION THAT NO RECORD IS MA INTAINED FOR INCOME AS HIGH AS RS. 26 11 400/-. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FIL ED REGARDING RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES. IN VIEW OF TOTAL FAILURE IN THIS REGARD THE INCOME WAS TAKEN AS THE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THUS THE TOTAL INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 26 73 200/-. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF TH E AO BY MAKING FOLLOWING REMARKS:- 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE INCOME S HOWN AGAINST AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS THE NET CONSIDERATION AND THAT TOO ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS. IF A CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO ASK FOR THE DE TAILS AS HE HAS DONE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS DUTY BOUND TO AT LEAS T SUPPLY THE SAME TO THE EXTENT HIGHLIGHTED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. IN CIT VS. MOTOR GENERAL FINANCE LTD. (2002) 254 IT R 449 (DELHI) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSE E FAILS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRA WN TO THE EFFECT THAT IF PRODUCED THEY WOULD HAVE GONE AGA INST THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 1872. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARIFICATION IT IS MENTIONED T HAT THIS CASE HAD GONE TO THE SUPREME COURT WHEREIN THE APEX CO URT IN 267 ITR 381 (SC) SENT BACK THE MATTER TO THE HIGH COURT AS CERTAIN FACTS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. HOWEVER T HE APEX COURT DID NOT COMMENT UPON THE PRESUMPTION RAISE D UNDER ITA NOS. 425 & 3997(DEL)/2010 4 SECTION 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. IN COOPER ENGINE ERING LTD. VS. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 597 (BOM.) IT WAS HEL D THAT WHERE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE C LAIM COULD BE DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT EST ABLISHED THE EXPENDITURE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE LD. AO TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 26 11 400/- IS UPHELD. THE ASS ESSEE FAILS IN GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 2 AND 3. 3. AT THIS STAGE WE MAY ALSO SUMMARIZE THE FACT S FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. FOR THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN ON 27.03.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 23 54 300/- COMPRISING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 22 50 800/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT R S. 1 03 500/-. THIS RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREA FTER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 08.09.2008. AS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 22 50 800/- WAS TAKEN AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IT APPEARS THAT THE AS SESSEE MAINTAINED A BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK MAHARANI BAGH NEW DELHI. HE RECEIVED AIR INFORMATION ABOUT THIS ACCOUNT IN W HICH A SUM OF RS. 22 85 000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH ON VARIOUS DATE S FROM 06.03.2007 TO 26.03.2007. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLA IN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS MADE IN THE ACCOUNT. NO EVIDENCE OR EXPLANATION WAS FILED. THEREFORE THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME BY INVO KING THE PROVISION ITA NOS. 425 & 3997(DEL)/2010 5 CONTAINED IN SECTION 69-A OF THE ACT. THUS THE T OTAL INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 49 41 900/-. 3.1 IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVITS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND COPIES OF JAMAB ANDI AND GIRDAWARI IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDINGS AND THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD DURING THE YEAR. THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED AND THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE AO ON 25.05.2010. THE AO WAS GI VEN FULL POWERS TO MAKE ENQUIRY INTO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PERMIT TED U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT. THE REMAND REPORT DATED 04.06.2010 WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE AO. THIS REPORT FURNISHES THE DETAILS OF ENQUIRY AND IT IS MENTIONED AT THE END THAT IN VIEW OF THE CONFIRMATION FURNISHED THE AGRICU LTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TWO OTHERS MAY BE ACCEPTED AS DECLARED. ACCORDINGLY THIS AMOUNT WAS DELETED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO TAKEN UP A GROUND THAT THE AO ERRED IN MAKING ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 25 85 000/- U/S 69-A AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY IT APPEARS THAT THIS GROUND WAS NOT DISPOSED OF. 4. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON FIVE OCCA SIONS ON VARIOUS DATES BETWEEN 29.03.2010 AND 14.12.2011. THE HEARINGS ON 29.03.2010 ITA NOS. 425 & 3997(DEL)/2010 6 23.06.2010 AND 27.07.2010 WERE ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 30.03.2011 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PAPER BOOK A COPY OF WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE LD. DR. TH E CASE WAS FINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14.12.2011 BY ISSUING A NOTICE DA TED 07.10.2011 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT D ULY SIGNED IS ON RECORD. HOWEVER WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NEITHER ANY ONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJ OURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THEREFORE WE DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE LD. SENIOR D.R. 4.1 THE LD. SENIOR D.R. TOOK US THROUGH THE CONT RADICTORY FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. IN THE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE AO T HAT THE ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.26 11 400/- REPRESENTS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. HOWEVER THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THIS HAS LED TO A SITUA TION WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 B UT REVENUE HAD FILED APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 BECAUSE OF INCONSISTE NCY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 O N WHICH REMAND REPORT ITA NOS. 425 & 3997(DEL)/2010 7 OF THE AO WAS OBTAINED. FINALLY THE ORDER WAS PAS SED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT . NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN ABSENCE THEREOF THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSES SEE. THE LD. SENIOR DR FAIRLY REPRESENTED THAT THE CONTRADICTION HAS T O BE RESOLVED AS THE SAME CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT EXPECTED TO GIVE TOTALLY DIF FERENT FINDINGS IN TWO YEARS. THEREFORE IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT MATTERS FOR BOTH THE YEARS MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO SO THAT CONSISTENT ORDERS COULD BE PASSED AFTER OBTAINING WHATSOEVER EVIDENCE THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL BEFORE US IN BOTH YEARS IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR CONSIDERING THE MATTER AFRESH AND PASS ORDER AS PER LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS ARE TREATED A S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (K.G. BANS AL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- SHRI RUMEL SINGH NEW DELHI. ITO WARD 24(3) NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT THE DR ITAT NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.