Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Ajit Singh Malhotra, Pipariya vs Acit Central-Ii, Bhopal on 22 October, 2020
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इ दौर यायपीठ, इ दौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT(SS)A No.63/Ind/2019
Assessment Year:2016-17
Shri Ajit Singh Melhotra ACIT (Central)-II
Near Alka Talkies, Nehru बनाम/ Bhopal
Ward, Pachmarhi Road,
Vs.
Piparia
(Appellant) (Revenue )
P.A. No.ABJPM6167G
Appellant by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA
Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR
Date of Hearing: 06.10.2020
Date of Pronouncement: 22.10.2020
आदे श / O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, J.M:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(in short 'Ld. CIT(A)'-3, Bhopal, dated 08.02.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Ajit Singh Melhotra /ITANo.63/Ind/2019 law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- to the total income of the appellant merely on the basis of statement of his son as recorded under section 132(4) of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submission made before him even when there was no material evidence corroborating such addition to the total income of the appellant. Rs.3,09,000/-
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the interest as charged by the assessing officer under section 234A and 234B of the Act. Rs.1,23,888/-
3. The appellant reserves his right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him.
2. The facts in brief relating to addition of Rs.10,00,000/- are that the assessee is an individual and having income from agricultural activities etc. and various firms. Search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) were carried out on residential premises of assessee on 05.10.2015. In response assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 06.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.13,67,670/-. The AO made addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of disclosure made during search u/s 132(4) of the IT Act. 2
Ajit Singh Melhotra /ITANo.63/Ind/2019
3. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who also confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer on the ground that the retraction from the statement was belated and an after-thought. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
4. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition was made merely on the basis of statement of assessee's son wherein additional income at Rs.10,00,000/- on account of loose papers was accepted. However, all these documents were properly recorded in the regular books of accounts of the persons to which these documents actually pertained. Therefore, the assessee while filing of his return of total income did not consider the amount of additional income which was accepted by his son at the time of search on account of documents/loose papers.
5. On the contrary Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submissions of the Ld. counsel for the 3 Ajit Singh Melhotra /ITANo.63/Ind/2019 assessee and supported the orders of the authorities below.
6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that the addition was made on the basis of admission of assessee's son during the course of search. It was contended before us, that all these documents were properly recorded in the regular books of accounts of the persons to which these documents actually pertained. However, we find that the assessing officer did not establish the fact that any of the documents as found and seized was not recorded in the books of accounts of the persons to which these documents actually pertained. Therefore, we find force in the contention of the assessee that without referring to any of the documents was not binding on the assessee and the same cannot be used against the assessee as an evidence and that too in search 4 Ajit Singh Melhotra /ITANo.63/Ind/2019 assessment proceedings. Our view is supported by ratio laid down in the following judicial pronouncement:
1. M/s Ultimate Builders vs. ACIT (ITANo.134/Ind/2019 dated 09.08.2019)(Indore Tribunal).
2. ACIT vs. Sudeep Maheshwari (ITANo.524/Ind/2013 dated 13.02.2019)(Indore Tribunal)
3. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (2010)) 328 ITR 0411(Guj)
4. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18(SC)
7. On consideration of above facts/submissions in the light of judicial pronouncements (Supra ) and the fact that no adverse material was filed by the revenue to controvert the factual submission advanced before us, we direct the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs.10,00,00/-.
8. In result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the open court on 22.10.2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(MANISH BORAD) (KUL BHARAT)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Indore; दनांक Dated : 22/10/2020
5
Ajit Singh Melhotra /ITANo.63/Ind/2019 Patel/PS Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file.
By order Assistant Registrar, Indore 6