THE DCIT CC-35, MUMBAI v. SMT. SARJU P. PATEL, MUMBAI

ITSSA 87/MUM/2007 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 8719916 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AFQPP4676L
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITSSA 87/MUM/2007
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant THE DCIT CC-35, MUMBAI
Respondent SMT. SARJU P. PATEL, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted J
Tribunal Order Date 25-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 17-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 17-11-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 22-05-2007
Judgment Text
1 SARJU P PATEL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI J BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JM IT(SS) NO. 87/MUM/2007 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 11.4.2002) THE DY COMMR OF INCOME TAX CEN CIR 35 MUMBAI VS SMT SARJU P PATEL 51 BIBIJAN ST 1 ST FLOOR MUMBAI 3 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AFQPP4676L ASSESSEE BY SH Y P TRIVEDI/ MS USHADALAL REVENUE BY MS KUSUM INGALE DT.OF HEARING 17.11.2011 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25 TH NOV 2011 PER VIJAY PAL RAO JM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 15.3.2007 OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 11.4 .2002 . 2 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN T HIS APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACIT ERRED IN COMPLETI NG THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER FINDINGS OF FACTS EITHER IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER O R IN THE REMAND REPORT AND IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE RELIE F IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 69 45 814/- 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE ABOVE BE SET ASIDE AND THAT THE IT O/AC/DC BE RESTORED. 2 SARJU P PATEL 3 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR AS WELL AS THE LD AR OF T HE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTS ET WE NOTE THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT KOKILABEN PATEL IN ITA(SS) NO.86/MUM/2007 FOR THE BLOCK PERIO D 1.4.1996 TO 11.4.2002 VIDE ORDER DATED 29 TH JAN 2009. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 8 AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BOTH SI DES MATERIAL ON RECORD AND OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER IT IS NOTED THAT THE A.O. EVEN AT A SINGLE PLACE HAS NOT MENTIO NED THAT WHAT WERE THE COMPLIANCES AND HOW THESE COMPLIANCES WERE NOT SATIS FACTORY AND THEREAFTER LIE HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAK ING ADDITION BY THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS MERELY BY PLAC ING RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 32(4) WITHOUT ANALYZING THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS. EVEN THOUGH IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. HAS REPORT ED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD HE SUSTAINED BUT WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS P RODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE ID. CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND RECONCILED THE SAME WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BALAN CE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND DELETED THE ADDITION ON MERITS. THUS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE HENCE THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 4 THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT APPLIED IN THIS CASE. 5 WE NOTE THAT ALL THESE CASES AROSE FROM THE SAME SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ALSO IDENTICAL. TH E CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE HIS MOTHER AND BROTHER BY IDENTICA L ORDERS. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SHRI PANKAJ M PATEL THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.85/MUM/2007 HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE ORDER IN T HE CASE OF SMT KOKILABEN PATEL DECIDED THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE 3 SARJU P PATEL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT KOKILABEN PATEL (SUPRA) WE DEICIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 25 TH DAY OF NOV 2011. SD/ SD/ ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 25 TH NOV 2011 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR ITAT MUMBAI