ACIT, New Delhi v. Smt. Poonam Dhingra, Prop, Gurgaon

ITA 4499/DEL/2009 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 449920114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AEPPD4102D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4499/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, New Delhi
Respondent Smt. Poonam Dhingra, Prop, Gurgaon
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 27-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 27-04-2010
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 26-11-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4499 & 4500/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01 & 2001-02 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-18 ROOM NO.327 IIIRD FLOOR ARA CENTRE E-2 JHANDEWALAN EXTN. NEW DELHI. VS. SMT. POONAM DHINGRA PROP. M/S POONAM CLOTHING D-4 A/7 DLF CITY PHASE I GURGAON. PAN : AEPPD4102D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. BANITA DEVI NAREON SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 & 2001-02. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ID ENTICAL EXCEPT DIFFERENCE IN FIGURES. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ARE REPRODUCED:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETI NG THE ADDITIONS OF RS.7 00 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED BEF ORE THE A.O. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALTHOUGH THE ASS ESSEE ITA NO.4499 & 4500/DEL/200 2 WAS GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO PRODUCE THE SAME . 3. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT T ENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR AME ND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURS E OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE FIGURE OF RS.7 L AC IS REPLACED BY A FIGURE OF RS.8 LAC 4. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN BOTH THE YEARS IS PASSED U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 144 OF IT ACT 1961 (THE ACT). WHILE MAKIN G THE ADDITION FOR BOTH THE YEARS THE OBSERVATIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ID ENTICAL EXCEPT THE DIFFERENCE IN FIGURE AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER:- FROM THE SEIZED RECORDS AND DETAILS FILED IN SL D HINGRA GROUP OF CASES IT IS NOTICED THAT MRS. POONAM DHING RA IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S POONAM CLOTHING. HOWEVER SHE HAS NOT ENCL OSED ACCOUNTS OF M/S POONAM CLOTHING WITH ITS RETURN OF INCOME. MOREOVER THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL IS FIL ED. SINCE M/S POONAM CLOTHING HAS ENTERED INTO HUGE TRANSACTION W ITH ITS SISTER CONCERNS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03; 03-04 AND 04-05. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FILED I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT MR S. POONAM DHINGRA IS EARNING GOOD PROFIT FROM ITS PROPRIETORS HIP CONCERN AND IS AVOIDING TO DECLARE ITS INCOME. TO AVOID ANY POSSI BLE LEAKAGE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ESTIMATED AT RS.8 00 000/ - FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. BEFORE LD. CIT (A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN NAMELY M/S POONAM CLOTHING THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DO ANY BUSINESS DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ENT ERED INTO CERTAIN FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH OTHER GROUP COMPANIES/CONCERNS B UT NO INCOME FROM THOSE TRANSACTIONS HAD ACCRUED OR EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE NIL RETURN WAS FILED AND AS NONE OF THE TRANSACTIONS RESULTED INTO INCOME THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE YEARS WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LA W. ALONG WITH THE ITA NO.4499 & 4500/DEL/200 3 SUBMISSIONS THE COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF THE CONCERNS W ITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WERE ALSO FURNI SHED AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FR OM WHERE IT COULD BE GATHERED THAT ANY ESTIMATE WITH REGARD TO INCOME WAS REQUIRE D TO BE MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN FOR MAKING BEST JUDGEMENT ASSES SMENT THERE SHOULD BE SOME BASIS. THESE SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THE REPL Y VIDE LETTER DATED 5 TH FEBRUARY 2007 IN WHICH HE AGITATED THE ADMISSION O F ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT COMMENT UPON THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT DELIBERATELY PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSIGNED NO REASON TO MAKE THE BEST JUDGEMENT ASSES SMENT AND FROM THE DETAILS IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. LD. CIT (A) HAS MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KUTCHWA LA GEMS 288 ITR 10 TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EVEN WITH REGARD TO BES T JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT THOUGH THERE IS CERTAIN DEGREE OF GUESS WORK BUT T HE AUTHORITY SHOULD TRY TO MAKE AN HONEST AND FAIR ESTIMATE OF INCOME. THUS CONS IDERING THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY AD HOC ADDITION H E HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. THE DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED HENCE IN APPEAL. 6. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NONE WAS PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THEREFORE WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 7. LD. DR AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS RELIED UPON TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA NO.4499 & 4500/DEL/200 4 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE OR DER OF THE CIT (A). IT HAS BEEN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER WAS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE GROUP CONCERNS/COMPAN IES WAS PURELY FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND PR OPER ACCOUNTS AND THOSE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT RELATABLE TO ANY INCOME EARNE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HAS NOT RELATED ANY OF THE S O-CALLED FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HER GROUP CONCERN S TO SHOW THAT ANY INCOME WAS GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THOSE TRANSACTIO NS. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY OF THE FINANCIAL TRAN SACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNEXPLAINABLE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OF SUCH MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELE TING THE ADDITION PARTICULARLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ENT ER INTO ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTION WHICH RESULTED IN ANY INCOME. THERE IS COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY UNEXPLAINED CRE DIT EXISTING IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE I N THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) VIDE WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTME NT ARE DISMISSED. . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.04.20 10. [SHAMIM YAHYA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 30.04.2010. DK ITA NO.4499 & 4500/DEL/200 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES