ITO, New Delhi v. Sh. Jagmeet Singh Shahpuri, New Delhi

ITA 560/DEL/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 56020114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAYPS1752M
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 560/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant ITO, New Delhi
Respondent Sh. Jagmeet Singh Shahpuri, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 29-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 29-03-2012
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 01-02-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ITA NO. 560/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER VS. SHRI JAGMEET SINGH SHAHPU RI WARD 47(2) J-10/108 RAJOURI GARDEN NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAYPS1752M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: MS. Y. KAKKA R DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.B. G UPTA CA DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.03.2012 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 10.11.2010 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.23 87 900. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HA S FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.3.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.98 584. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.23 87 900 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: AS PER THE AIR ENTRY DATED 31.03.2006 THE ASSESSE E HAS MADE A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.23 87 900 IN LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD. RAJOURI GARDEN 2 NEW DELHI. COPY THEREOF WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSE E THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. NO EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THIS CASH DEPOSITS. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACT THE ONLY CONCLUSION THA T COULD BE DRAWN IN THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.23 87 900 IS BEING MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ACCOUNT. PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ARE BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY. 3. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS ). HE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE RETAIL TRADE OF AUTO SP ARE PARTS AT THE SHOP OWNED BY HIS WIFE SITUATED AT J-7/12-C FIRST FLOOR RAJAURI GARDEN DELHI W.E.F. IST OF APRIL 2005. HE ENTERED INTO AN AGREE MENT WITH THE SUPPLIER NAMELY M/S. ORIENT AUTO INDUSTRIES WHICH IS PROPRI ETARYSHIP OF SHIR HARJIT SINGH BEDI. AS PER THE AGREEMENT ASSESSEE WAS TO C ARRY OUT RETRIAL TRADING OF AUTO SPARE PARTS SUPPLIED BY M/S. ORIENT AUTO INDUS TRIES. THIS CONCERN HAS AGREED THAT IF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EARN NET PR OFIT AFTER DEDUCTING ALL THE EXPENSES EQUIVALENT TO RS.1 05 000 FROM THIS RETAI L BUSINESS THEN IT WILL PAY MINIMUM REMUNERATION. TO THIS EXTENT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT OF HIS SUPPLIER SHIR HARJIT BEDI COPY OF THE AGREEMENT AN D OTHER DETAILS. IT EMERGES OUT IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME UNDER 3 THE HEAD SALARY WHEREAS HE IS CLAIMING INCOME UND ER THE HEAD BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED HIS POSITION THAT PRIOR TO I ST APRIL 2005 HE WAS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND HE WAS FILING HIS RETURN OF I NCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THA T ALL THE DOCUMENTS I.E. AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI BEDI COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ETC. WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS. SHRI HARJIT BEDI APPEARED ALSO BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ONLY TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE DEPOSITS AVAILABLE IN THE A CCOUNT. HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE WITHDRAWALS MADE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT HE WAS ABLE TO ACHIEVE TURNOVER OF RS.20 82 650. HE WAS NO T REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HE CAN OFFER HIS INCOME FROM T HE RETAIL TRADE UNDER SECTION 44AF @ 5% OF THE TURNOVER. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED PROFIT AT RS.1 75 800 WHICH IS 8.44% OF THE TURNOVER. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GONE THROUGH ALL THESE EVIDENCES AND ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF THE DEPO SITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDIT ION. 4. BEFORE US LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPO N THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 4 5. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES WE FIND THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS JUST RUNNING INTO ONE PAGE. ASS ESSING OFFICER EXCEPT NOTICING THE DATE OF HEARING DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANC E OF ANY OTHER ASPECTS. HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.23 87 900 IN THE FINDINGS E XTRACTED ABOVE IN A SUMMARY WAY. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE EXPLANATI ON BUT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BOTHER TO NOTE THAT EXPLA NATION. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CONSIDERED ALL THESE ASPECT S AND ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE ALLEGED BANK ACCOUNT IS BEING U SED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES WHERE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN AS WELL AS DEPOSITED. ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE RECONCILED THE ACCO UNTS BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DEBIT ENTRY ALSO. THUS IN OUR OP INION LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS EXAMINED THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN HI S ORDER. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.03.20 12 SD/- SD/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30/03/2012 MOHAN LAL 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR