Shri Balubhai V. Parmar,, Morbi. v. The DCIT (Inve),, Rajkot

ITSSA 29/RJT/2006 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2010

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2924916 RSA 2006
Assessee PAN AORPP2151E
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number ITSSA 29/RJT/2006
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Shri Balubhai V. Parmar,, Morbi.
Respondent The DCIT (Inve),, Rajkot
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 03-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 03-12-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 28-12-2006
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI A.L. GEHLOT (AM) AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JM) I.T.(SS)A. NO. 29/RJT/2006 (BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-88 TO 24-02-99) SHRI BALUBHAU V PARMAR VS DCIT INV.CIR.1(1) SURVA KIRTI SOCIETY NO.2 RAJKOT NEAR HRISHIKESH VIDYALAYA MORBI PAN : AORPP2151E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DR ADHIA REVENUE BY : SHRI SL MEENA O R D E R A.L. GEHLOT : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV RAJKOT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-88 TO 24-02-99. THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS ARE TAKEN IN THE APPEAL: 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-IV RAJKOT ERRED IN UPHOLDI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 000/- BY TREATING MY WIFE SMT. SHANTABEN V PARMARS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AS MY UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZA NCE OF THE EVIDENCES AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A()-IV RAJKOT ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 71 400/- AND THEREBY CONFIRMING TH E CONTRADICTORY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE EVIDENCES AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE APPEAL IS LATE BY 242 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FI LED CONDONATION APPLICATION SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT WHEREIN THE REAS ONS FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. THE REASONS STATED FO R DELAYED SUBMISSION OF APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A VERY LOW PROFILE PERSON. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 24-02-1999 DUE TO WRONG INFORMATION AN D MISLINK WITH NK PROTEINS LTD GROUP OF AHMEDABAD. THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPRESSE D AND LOST COMMAND OF ITSSA NO.29/RJT/2006 2 HIS MENTAL POSITION AND EVEN COULD NOT ATTEND HIS R OUTINE WORK FOR A LONG TIME. THE LD.AR MADE THE SUBMISSIONS ON THE BASIS OF COND ONATION APPLICATION WHEREAS THE LD.DR OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION OF DE LAY. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES RECORD PERUSED. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE CONDONE THE DELAY. 4. WITH REGARD TO FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND NO.3 THE BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 24-02-1999. BLOCK ASSESS MENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 158BC R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MADE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKH ON THE GROUND THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THE ASSESS EE IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.16 OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED CONFESSED THAT RS.2 LAKH S IS INVESTED IN HOUSE PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AR POINTED OUT THAT THE HOUSE IS IN THE NAME OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. SHANTABEN V PARMAR. HE FURTHER STAT ED THAT IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IN HER CASE SIMILAR AMOUNT OF RS.2 LAKHS WAS ADDED. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THI S ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHANTABEN V PARMAR HAS NOT BEEN CH ALLENGED. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF REVENUE AU THORITIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES RECORD PERUSED. WE FIND THAT THE HOUSE IS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. SHANTABEN V PARMAR. AN ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS HAS BEEN MADE WH ILE MAKING BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IN HER CASE. SIMIL AR ADDITION HAS ALSO BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE FIND THAT DOUBLE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS HAS BEEN ADDED ONE I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEES WIFE. SIN CE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED AS STAT ED BY THE LD.AR IT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE TO DELETE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE. GROUND 3 OF THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. ITSSA NO.29/RJT/2006 3 6. THE OTHER EFFECTIVE GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF ADDI TION OF RS.5 71 400. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH A DIARY WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED VIDE REPLY TO QUESTION N O.20 OF STATEMENT ON OATH THAT THE SAID DIARY PERTAINED TO STOCK OF THE ASSES SEE AT TARASAI WHEREIN NOTINGS ARE PERTAINING TO SAMVAT YEARS 2041 TO 2046. THE R ELEVANT FREE ENGLISH TRANSLATION FILED BY THE LD.AR TO QUESTION NO.20 AN D ITS REPLY IS REPRODUCED BELOW: Q-20: FROM THE DIARY KISHOR FOUND FROM YOU ANNE XURE A/2 (SEIZED) IS BEING SHOWN TO YOU. ON PAGE NO.1 THERE OF THERE IS A NOTE MENTIONING THAT DURING 2041 TO 2046 PROFIT OF RS.6 00 012/- IS EARNED. TO WHICH ITEM THIS PROFIT PERTAINS AND YOU RSELF OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS SHOWN THIS IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN OR NOT THIS MAY BE STATED. A-20 : AFTER DEDUCTING LOSS IN VAL BUSINESS (AN AGR ICULTURE PRODUCT) THE TOTAL PROFIT OF RS.5 71 400/- REMAINS FROM MY S HOP AT TARSAI. INCOME-TAX RETURN HAS NOT BEEN FILED AND I WILL PAY TAX ON THIS PROFIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5 71 400 ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE QUESTION AND REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE LD.AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE ISSUE WHICH IS AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIMITED IN THE SENSE TH AT THE DIARY PERTAINING TO SAMVAT YEARS 2041 TO 2046 WHICH IS BEYOND THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE BLOCK PERIOD STARTS FROM 01-04-1988 WHEREAS THE POSITION OF SAMV AT YEARS IS AS UNDER: S.Y. 2041 25-10-84 TO 12-11-85 S.Y. 2042 13.11.85 TO 02-11-86 S.Y. 2043 03-11-86 TO 22-10-87 S.Y. 2044 23-10-87 TO 31-03-88 (AND 5 MONTHS) THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NECESSARY RELIEF M AY BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME WHICH IS BEYOND THE BLOCK PERIOD. ITSSA NO.29/RJT/2006 4 7. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE OR DERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME MAY BE FO R EARLIER YEARS TO THE BLOCK PERIOD BUT INCOME FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN TH E DIARY. THEREFORE THE SAME IS ASSESSABLE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 8. WE HAVE THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTI ES RECORD PERUSED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.AR THAT TRANSACTIONS AND INCOME THAT ARE BEYOND THE BL OCK PERIOD IS NOT ASSESSABLE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER NECESSARY CALCUL ATION AND VERIFICATION OF FACTS ARE REQUIRED. WE THEREFORE SEND BACK THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE FACT S FROM THE DIARY AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE TRANSACTION AND INCOME RECORDED IN THE DIA RY ARE BEYOND THE BLOCK PERIOD THE RELEVANT INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE REDUC ED FROM THE ADDITION MADE. THE INCOME BEYOND THE BLOCK PERIOD CANNOT BE ASSESS ED IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE OTHER GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL DO NOT REQUIRE A DJUDICATION BEING GENERAL IN NATURE. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03-12-2010. SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJKOT DT : 03 RD DECEMBER 2010 PK/- ITSSA NO.29/RJT/2006 5 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-IV RAJKOT 4. THE CIT-III RAJKOT 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT RAJKOT