ITO, Meerut v. Smt. Adesh Jain, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 5204/DEL/2010 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 520420114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5204/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Meerut
Respondent Smt. Adesh Jain, Uttar Pradesh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 25-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 25-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 25-01-2011
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 23-11-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NO. 5204/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YR: 1998-99 INCOME-TAX OFFICER VS. SMT. ADESH JAIN WARD 1(1) MEERUT. 68/3 KAMLA NAGAR BAGHPAT RO AD MEERUT. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMRENDRA KUMAR DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P. SAPRA ADV. O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI J.M : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 13-09-2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1998-99. SOLE GROUND RAISED IS AS UNDER: WHETHER IN THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN L AW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 99 315/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF ASSETS DESPITE THE AO HOLDING THE SALE B ILLS ISSUED BY M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR SARRAF AS BOGUS. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE: FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF HER INCOME DECLARING LONG TERM CAPITAL GA IN OF RS. 30 209/- ON SALE OF JEWELLERY AND DIAMONDS. ALONG WITH HER RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED PHOTO COPY OF SALE BILL AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 52 640/- ISSUED BY M/S B.M. JEWELLERS (P) LTD. CHANDNI CHOWK DELHI ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY; CERTIFICATE U/S 68(2) OF THE VDIS 1997; AND VALUA TION REPORT OF JEWELLERY. 2 2.1. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO OBSERVE D THAT A SEARCH U/S 132 OF I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF SH RI BISHAN CHAND AND SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL SARRAF ON 3-8-2000. IT WAS RE VEALED THAT THAT M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF SHRI BISHAN CHAND AND MANOJ AGGGARWAL WERE NOT ENGAGED IN ANY REAL SALE P URCHASE OF JEWELLERY BUT WERE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION B OOK ENTRIES TO VARIOUS PERSONS. ACCORDING TO AO THE PRESENT ASSES SEE WAS ONE OF SUCH BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO BOGUS SALE/PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 9 99 315/- (INCLUSIVE OF RS. 30 2 09/- DECLARED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN). THE AO TREATED THE AFORESAID SUM OF RS. 9 99 315/- CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSE ES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES INTRODUCED IN THE GARB OF SALE OF JEWELLERY TO M/S B.M. JEWELLERS (P) LTD. AND ADDED THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 2.2. IN APPEAL THE CIT(APPEALS) RELYING ON SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL & OTHERS VS. DCI T (2008) 113 ITD 377 (DELHI)(SB) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE THE ITAT. 3. LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER H AND CONTENDS THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DETAILED ORDER PASSED BY ITAT DELHI SPECIAL BENCH CONSTITUTING OF FIVE MEMBERS IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL & OTHERS VS. DCIT (2008) 113 ITD 377 (DELHI)(SB) IN WHICH ALL ASPECTS IN RESPE CT OF M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR BEMCO JEWELLERS [ALONG WITH TAJINDER SINGH HUF VS. DCIT (INV.) IN ITA NO. 163/ASR/03)]AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. 3 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL & OTHERS VS. DCIT (SUPRA) IN PARA 166 IN TER ALIA HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 166. . WE HAVE ALSO FOUND THAT NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CONSEQUENCE WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH TO DIRECTLY SHOW THAT THE JEWELLERY BUSINESS WAS BOGUS AND THAT IT WAS ONLY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BUSINESS. ON THE OTHER HAND TH E EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY THE EV IDENCE IN THE FORM OF SALES TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE TRANSACTI ONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF JEWELLERY WERE ACCEPTED BY THE SALES TAX AU THORITIES WAS FOUND TO BE RELIABLE BY US TO SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE RELEVANT TRANSITIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF JEWELLERY WERE GENUINE. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF BEMCO/ MANOJ AGGARWAL AS WELL AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO INCLUDING THE E VIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD ARE SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION RENDERED IN TH E CASE OF BEMCO/ MANOJ KUMAR ON THE SAID ISSUE IS APPLICABLE EVEN IN THE CASE OF M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR WITH EQUAL FORCE AND THIS BEING SO NO MEANINGFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED BY SENDING THE MA TTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION AND RE-DECISI ON MERELY BECAUSE THE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS IN THE CAS E OF M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR. IN OUR OPINION THIS EXERCISE W OULD PROVE TO BE MERELY ACADEMIC AND IT WOULD RESULT ONLY IN MULT IPLICITY OF LITIGATION. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO SEND THIS MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION AS SOU GHT BY SHRI KAPILA AND FOLLOWING OUR CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE CASE OF B EMCO/ MANOJ AGGARWAL WE HOLD THAT THE TRANSACTION RELATING TO SALE OF JEWELLERY IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE I.E. TEJINDER SING H HUF IS GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 68 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.1. THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED CASE HAS HELD THAT NO ADVERSE EVIDENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE WAS FOUND DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH 4 IN THE CASE OF JEWELERS TO SUGGEST THAT THESE TRANS ACTIONS WERE BOGUS OR ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN NATURE. THE CASE OF TEJIND ER SINGH HUF ( I.E. THE SELLER OF THE JEWELLERY HAVING BEEN DECLARED UNDER VDIS) IS SIMILAR IN FACTS TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS DELET ED THE ADDITIONS IN THE CASE OF TEJINDER SINGH HUF. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ABOUT ACCEPTANCE OF VDIS A ND SALE OF JEWELLERY. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE HOLD THA T FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF TEJINDER SINGH HUF DECIDED BY SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE UPHOLD T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25-01-2011. SD/- SD/- (K.D. RANJAN ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25-01-2011. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR