9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, in view of Section 132 (4A) of Act, 1961. CIT(A) as well as Tribunal in this case have completed failed to consider that documents and entries were not disputed by Assessee and instead she submitted an explanation that documents relate to some other persons but those other persons denied it, hence Assessee failed to rebut presumption against her that documents pertain to her, the contents are true and transaction therein relates to Assessee. We answer the questions formulated above in favour of Revenue but hold that presumption under Section 132(4A) of Act, 1961 in the present case for making addition is justified with regard to Annexure-A17, the document referred to in para 3 of assessment order and to that extent order of Tribunal is set aside. - Income Tax Appeal No. 65 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2017 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal And Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, JJ. For the Appellant : D.D.Chopra,Alok Mathur, Manish Misra For the Respondent : Mudit Agarwal ORDER 1. Heard Sri Alok Mathur, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Mudit Agarwal, Advocate for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice under Section 153A dated 26.02.2007 was served on Assessee on 17.03.2007. In response whereto Assessee filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2000-01 on 25.10.2007. No original return was filed by Assessee under Section 139(1) of Act, 1961 for concerned assessment year. In return of income filed in response to notice under Section 153A, Assessee shown interest income from fixed deposit receipts. Detailed questionnaire dated 02.11.2007 thereafter was served on Assessee which was replied by her. Assessee's books of accounts were examined and after discussing matter with representative of Assessee, Assessing Officer, i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as the ACIT ) passed order dated 28.12.2007 assessing income to ₹ 39,69,510/-. The order was passed after obtaining prior approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Lucknow. 8. Assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ) which was allowed vide order dated 11.07.2008 observing that documents which were relied for making additions did not establish any transaction/income/ receipt/ payment an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g contents are very clear: 31st Jan. - ₹ 8 lacs - Profit 14. Again this document was sought to be explained by Assessee that it relates to liquor business run by Shri Raj Kumar Jaiswal, Shri Ram Dayal Jaiswal and Shri Radhey Shyam Jaiswal who disowned said document. Entries are very clear and, therefore, ACIT treated ₹ 8 lacs as undisclosed income and made addition. 15. Annexure-A20 is third part of document which on the top mentions Abkari Adhikari, Lucknow and thereafter following figures are mentioned: 1602100 200000 - Draft 1402100 250000 1152100 16. Out of ₹ 16,02,100/- a draft of ₹ 2 lacs was prepared and thereafter balance amount mentioned is ₹ 14,02,100/-. Then ₹ 2,50,000/- has been subtracted, leaving balance of ₹ 11,52,100/-. Again this document sought to be explained by Assessee that it relates to liquor business run in the name of Shri Raj Kumar Jaiswal, Shri Ram Dayal Jaiswal and Shri Radhey Shyam Jaiswal but they disowned the document. Amount of ₹ 16,02,100/- as unexplained expenditure was treated by ACIT and added to the income. 17. On the back of Annexure-A20 there are three figures mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4A) of Act, 1961. 22. Presumption under Section 132(4A) is admittedly rebuttable but if Assessee fails to rebut it or gives an explanation which is found incorrect or an explanation which is not substantiated, Assessing Officer can proceed on the basis of such presumption. 23. The assessment order was passed under Section 153A/143(3) of Act, 1961. In the explanation furnished by Assessee she did not claim that those documents did not reflect any transaction at all. On the contrary her explanation was that same pertains to business though of some other persons, but those others contradicted Assessee's statement. 24. ACIT has not made addition in respect of various dumb documents, contents whereof gave no clear indication, either way, but has taken only four such documents where contents are very clear and sufficient to draw a particular inference in absence of any otherwise explanation substantiated by Assessee. 25. In P.R. Metrani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, 2007(1) SCC 789, Court said that presumption under Section 132(4A) would apply to assessments made in search cases. Court further said that sub-section (4A) enables an Assessing Authority to rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is upon such a person to prove and to explain. 28. CIT(A) as well as Tribunal in this case have completed failed to consider that documents and entries were not disputed by Assessee and instead she submitted an explanation that documents relate to some other persons but those other persons denied it, hence Assessee failed to rebut presumption against her that documents pertain to her, the contents are true and transaction therein relates to Assessee. 29. Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent, however submitted that except Annexure-A17, page 16, entries in other documents are neither clear nor show any corelation with business of Assessee and instead document Annexure-A20 page 24, on top mention Abkari Adhikari, Lucknow which shows that it was in relation to some excise matter and not concerned with Assessee. 30. However, when confronted with Annexure-A17, page 16, the document referred to in para 3 of assessment order, he could not dispute that aforesaid document makes it clear that ₹ 7,30,000/- were paid to some Jijaji in cash and to that extent addition with reference to aforesaid document is justified. 31. In view thereof, we answer the questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
