ACIT, Chandigarh v. Smt. Monica Baboota, Chandigarh

ITA 899/CHANDI/2012 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 89921514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN ABJPB2784Q
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 899/CHANDI/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Chandigarh
Respondent Smt. Monica Baboota, Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 28-04-2014
Next Hearing Date 28-04-2014
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 31-08-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 898/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE II VS. SANJEEV BABOOTA CHANDIGARH SCO 1132-33 SEC 22- CHANDIGARH ABJPB 2784Q ITA NO. 899/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE II VS. SMT. MONICA BABOOT A CHANDIGARH SCO 1132-33 SEC 22- CHANDIGARH AGFPB 5304H ITA NO. 900/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE II VS. SMT. GEETA CHAUDHA RI CHANDIGARH SCO 1132-33 SEC 22- CHANDIGARH AGFPC 4999G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI AMARVEER SINGH RESPONDENT BY: S/SHRI RAVI SHANKAR B.M. MONGA ROHIT KAURA DATE OF HEARING 28.4.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 .4.2014 O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD A.M THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.6.2012 OF THE LD CIT(A)(CENTRAL) GURGAON. SINC E ISSUES ARE COMMON IN THESE APPEALS WHICH WERE HEARD TOGETH ER AND THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 ITAS NO. 898 & 899/CHD/2012 2. IN THESE APPEALS THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE IDEN TICAL GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 37 37 000 MADE ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF INCOME -TAX ACT 1 961 MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SCO SITE AT DESU MAJRA. 2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT SHRI MANGAT RAI BABOOTA THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DISCLOSURE ON PAGES 42 TO 47 OF THE DOCUMENTS A -12 FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHR MANGAT RAI BABOOTA IN COU RSE OF SEARCH OPERATION 25.2.2009 IN THE SOF FILED BEFORE ITSC C ONTRARY TO THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT A SEA RCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE RESIDENCES AND OFFICES OF THE INDI VIDUALS AND GROUP CONCERNS OF SUBHASH MANGAT GROUP. IT WAS NOT ICED FROM SEIZED BOOKS OF SHRI MANGAT RAI BABOOTA WHO IS FATH ER OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS. 5.10 CORRESP ONDING FOR PURCHASE OF 11 PLOTS SHOWN AT VILLAGE DESU MAJRA DU RING THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN THE SITE TRANSACTIONS IN BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THAT WHY COST OF THE PLOTS SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME. IN RESPONSE IT WAS STATE D AS UNDER: THIS DOCUMENT RELATED TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHRI MANGAT RAI BABOOTA AND SHRI HARI SINGH MAAN & OTHERS FOR THE P URCHASE OF 11 SCO SITES AT VILLAGE DESU MAJRA. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PURCHASED ONE ABOVE SAID SHOWROOM FOR RS. 9 LAKHS D URING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. THIS INVESTMENT HAVE DULY BE EN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT ITEM NO. 2 OF OUR EARLIER REPLY. H OWEVER IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PUR CHAE OF SAID SCI SITE HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WHAT EVER UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF SAID SCO SITE THE SAME HAVE BY THE SHRI MANGAT RAI BABOOTA FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. SH MANGAT RAI BABOOTA HAVE ALREADY DISCL OSED THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THIS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MA DE IN THE PURCHASE OF SCO SITE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPLICA TION FILED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE AND HAS PAID THE TAXES THEREON ACCORDINGLY. AN AFF IDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT AND DULY SWORN BY MANGAT RAI BABOOTA CONTAIN ING ALL THE FACTS IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YEAR 4R5EADY REFEREN CE AND RECORD. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THIS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT SHOULD BE DRAWN AS IT WILL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF INCOM E WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE AB OVE RESPONSE BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM IT CANNOT BE REPU DIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED ONE OF THE SCO SITE AND HAD MADE PART PAYMENT OF RS. 9 LAKHS WHEREAS PROPORTIONATE C OST WAS RS. 46.37 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY A SUM OF RS. 37.37 LA KHS WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS MAINLY STATED THAT S O CALLED ON MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHIC H HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE F INDINGS OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ORDER NOTED THAT SO CALLED O N MONEY WAS DISCLOSED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 5 BEFORE US THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE SETT LEMENT COMMISSION IN PARA 6: 11.9 - FURTHER WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS B EEN COMPLETED U/S 1543A IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV BABOOTA AND MRS. M ONICA BABOOTA WHEREBY AN ADDITION OF RS. 37 37 000 HAS BE EN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON THE BASIS OF T HIS VERY AGREEMENT TO SELL. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTAL CONSID ERATION FOR 11 PLOTS OF SHOW ROOMS AT RS. 5.10 CRORES INCLUDING TH E EXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 99 LAKHS. THUS THE CITS CONTENT ION THAT THERE WAS AN UNDISCLOSED PAYMENT OF RS. 5.10 CORES IS NOT BORNE OUT BY THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE 1/11 TH SHARE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS. 46.37 LAKHS AND AFTER DEDUCING RS. 9 LAKHS BEIN G THE AMOUNT PAID FROM THE DISCLOSED SOURCES THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 37 37 000/- HAS BEEN ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T IN THE PLOTS OF SHOWROOMS. THUS THE STAND TAKEN BY THE DEPARTME NT IN RULE 9 REPORT AND BEFORE US IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH IT SOWN STAND IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE OTHER HAND WE NO5TICE THA T THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT IS A PLAUSIBLE E XPLANATION. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO S ELL IS RS. 5.10 CRORES. NOWHERE IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL THE WORD CASH HAS BEEN 4 USED. ON THE CONTRARY IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THIS AGREEMENT THAT 11 SHOWROOM SITES HAVE BEEN PURCHASE D IN THE NAMES OF DIFFERENT PERSONS AND THE FULL PAYMENT OF RS. 5.10 CRORES HAS BEEN MADE. THUS THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION FOR 1 1 SHOWROOMS IS RS. 5.10 AND THIS RS.5.10 CRORES IS NOT OVER AND AB OVE THE CONSIDERATION PAID BY CHEQUES. FURTHER THIS DOCUM ENT ALSO MAKES A REFERENCE OF THE 11 DIFFERENT BUYERS THOUGH THE N AMES HAVE NOT BEEN STATED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THEM IN RE SPECT OF ON MONEY OF RS. 1 86 85 000/- FOR ONLY FIVE OUT OF 11S HARS IN THE NAME OF MRS. GEETA CHOUDHARY ALIAS CHOPTA MRS. MON ICA BATOOTA MR. SANJEEV BABOOTA MR. SANDEEP MAGGO AND MRS. VIR AM BABOOTA APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPLICANT THAT THE TOT AL INCOME OFFERED BY THE APPLICANTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS RS. 2 35 00 000/-. WHICH COMPRISES AOF RS. 80 LAKHS IN THE FIRM SUBHASH MANGAT AND CO. RS. 80 LAKHS IN THE HANDS O F MR. MANGAT RAI BABOOTA AND RS. 75 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF MR. SU BHASH CHAND CHOPRA. THE PAYMENTS OF THIS ON MONEY HAS BEEN MAD E OUT OF THE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE OFFER MADE BE FORE THE COMMISSION. ABOVE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE FINDING HAS BEEN RECORD ED THAT A SUM OF RS 80 LAKHS DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF MANGAT RAI BABOOTA WOULD COVER THE ON MONEY IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SMT. MONICA BABOOTA AGAINST WHI CH ANOTHER APPEAL 899/CHD/2012 HAS BEEN FILED. THERE FORE WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. ITA NO. 900/CHD/2012 8 IN THIS APPEAL GROUNDS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL W ITH THAT IN CASE OF ACIT VS. SANJEEV BABOOTA IN ITA NO. 898/ CHD/2012 THAT IS REGARDING PURCHASE OF ONE OF SCO. ONLY DIF FERENCE IS THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE IN THIS CASE BY THE AS SESSEES FATHER-IN-LAW SUBHASH CHAND CHOPRA BEFORE THE SETT LEMENT COMMISSION. SINCE THE FACTS AND CONTENTIONS ARE ID ENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL IN CASE OF ACIT VS. SA NJEEV BABOOTA AND SMT. MONICA BABOOTA WHICH WE HAVE ADJUD ICATED IN ABOVE NOTED PARAS AND FOLLOWING THE SAME ORDER I N THIS CASE ALSO WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 5 9 IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.4.2014 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (T.R. SOOD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29.4.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR