9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the assessee. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty in all the assessment years under appeals. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA.Nos.413, 414, 415, 416, 417 & 418/Del./2017 And ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424 & 425/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2022 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate And Sh Shrey Jain, Advocate. For the Revenue : Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER BENCH : All the above appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-25, New Delhi, Dated 25.10.2016, for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 on quantum assessments and Orders Dated 26.10.2016 challenging the levy of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. Since common issues are involved in all the above appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First, we cull-out the facts from the quantum appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA.No.413/De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed income of the appellant. 3.1. That the above addition of Rs 9,18,54,176/- on protective basis is based upon unauthenticated, unverified photocopied documents supplied to French government by a criminal which cannot be used as evidence for making addition in assessment. The addition based upon information from investigation wing without any independent enquiry by Ld. AO to establish that the appellant is the beneficial owner of alleged bank account is not legally tenable. Refer 2005 (100) ECC 62 Truwoods Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Sanjiv Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Custom, Common Cause (A registered society) and others Vs Union of India and others (SC) [TS-22-SC-2017]. 3.2. That the appellant has not been confronted with or provided the copies of information said to be received under DTAA regarding alleged HSBC bank account of the appellant based upon which addition has been made by Ld. AO on protective basis. The addition and assessment are without compliance with principles of natural justice. The addition so made without providing lawful opportunity of rebuttal deserves to be deleted. Refer 125 ITR 713 (SC) Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT, 295 ITR 105 (DEL) CIT Vs. Dharm Pal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntrary to much case law in the appellant's favour. 7. That the assessment as made is without appreciating the evidentiary value of statement on oath by the appellant. That in absence of substantive basis or cogent material, the Ld. A.O. has not discharged his onus for making the erroneous addition as made. It is the Ld. A.O who is averring an affirmative which is denied by the Appellant. Onus of proving the affirmative is on the Ld. A.O. 8. That the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest u/s 234A of Rs 3,09,419/-, u/s 234B of Rs 3,31,07,870/- and u/s 234D of Rs 192/-. 9. That the grounds of appeal as herein are without prejudice to each other. 10. That the appellant craves the right to add, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing of appeal. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that as per the information available from Investigation Wing, Mr. Bhushan Lal Sawhney was having a Bank A/c bearing No.xxxxx52687 with HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland and with profile name Mr. Bhushan Lal Sawhney and Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney with client profile code 5094191436. The A.O. noted that assessee was the wife of Mr. Bhush ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal is with reference to additions made of the amount deposited in Bank A/c maintained with HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland. 8.1. We find that similar addition arising out of the same bank deposits in the same bank account was made in the case of husband of the assessee Mr. Bhushan Lal Sawhney has been deleted by the ITAT, Delhi Benches, Delhi vide order dated 01.06.2021 in ITA.Nos.427 to 432/Del./2017 for the A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2011-12 wherein the Tribunal observed as under : 8.1. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case above, it is also clear that during the course of search no incriminating material was found against the assessee for maintaining any such bank accounts with HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland. Whatever information was supplied by the Swiss Authorities subsequently to the Revenue Authorities in India, no such information was provided for the period prior to 01.04.2011. Therefore, it is clear that no information have been provided by the Swiss Authorities that assessee maintained any bank account with HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland in assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reon in any of the assessment years. In view of the above, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the entire additions. In view of the above, there is no need to decide the remaining grounds of appeals which are left with academic discussion only. Accordingly, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed. 8.2. Before us, no distinguishing facts in the present case and the case of assessee s husband i.e., Mr. Bhushan Lal Sawhney has been pointed-out by the Ld. D.R. In such a situation, since the facts of the present case are identical to that of Mr. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, the husband of assessee, therefore, following the reasons for decision by the ITAT, Delhi Benches, Delhi in its order dated 01.06.2021 (supra) in the case of husband of assessee Mr. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, no addition is called for in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. Since we have set aside the addition, we are of the view that there is no need to decide the remaining grounds of appeals and the other grounds raised by the assessee are not adjudicated. Accordingly, ITA.No.413/Del./ 2017 of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
