Appellant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur v. Respondent Trilok Singh Dhillon

OivisionBencS>">•'-«.:i<'»^1,-^1;M JMEaiIGlUAy.BI..aEJAUI£^^^, f~TWC ^tA^NO. ^^/^OlS2-^APPEI.LANT:CQrnmissionerofincome, f^^K.aipur.Vs.ftiftBaj^Bfilij^frilok Singh Phillan/M.No.7A/l,NehruNagar(E),'^y~Bhilai, District Dyrg (CG)^"""[AEmiULlJI^I^LiB^&miait.IIIlrjL^^]ITAMA£Z/-AtM HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR » CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. TaxCaseNo.30of2011 APPELLANT APPELLANTCommissioner of Income Tax, Raipur.VERSUSRESPONDENTTrilok Singh Dhillon. Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act Appearance: Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the Appellant.Shri SR Rao, counsel for the Respondent. JUDGEMENT(08th November, 2013) 1. This is a tax appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) against the order ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BilaspurBench, Bilaspur (the Tribunal) dated 29.03.2010, dismissing the appealoftheIncomeTaxDepartment(theDepartment)inrespectofAssessment Year (AY) 2005-06. THE FACTS 2. A raid was conducted in the office premises of Shri Trilok Singh Dhillon(the Assessee) on 24.08.2004.In this raid, bills for fuel expenses to thetune of ?18,41,758/- were found in the premises. Subsequently, theAssessee filed his return on 23.11.2006, however, the fuel expenseswere not claimed. 3. The AO by his orderdated 28.12.2006 added a sum of?18,41,758/- onaccount of unexplained expenditure of the Assessee for fuel purchases.The Assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) (the CIT-A).It was allowed and the addition made by theAO was deleted by order dated 01.10.2008. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT-A, the Department filed an appealbefore the Tribunat.It was dismissed on 29.03.2010. Hence, the presentappeal by the Department. .^^wy THE DECISION 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. 6. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 14.10.2011, on the following substantial question of law: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesand in the law of the case, the ITAT wasjustifiedindeletingtheadditionofRs. 18,41,758/- made by the AO on account ofunexplained expenditure for fuel purchase?' 7. In the search, the bills of Adarsh Service Station, Supela, Bhilai to thetune of ?18,41,758/- were found. These bills were not in the name of theAssessee but they were in the name of Shri IS Chawla, Shri BR Bhalla,Shri Radhe Lal, Shri D Singh and Shri RS Sohi. 8. The case of the Assessee was that: He was merely the financier; The bills were not found from his possession but from Manharan Lal Verma, who was working for different licencees of liquor; The expenses were done by different licencees and not by him; 9. The AO did not accept the same but added in the income of theAssessee as unexplained expenditure. 10. The CIT-A has allowed the appeal on the basis of the findingrecorded in its order on 01.10.2008 in respect of the AY 2004-05. A copyof this order has been produced before us. 11. The CIT-A in its order had held that Manharan Lal Verma is anindependent person who was working for different licencees and theexpenditure was done on their behalf. The CIT-A accepted finding of theearlier AY and the Tribunal has also approved the same.At the most,this expenditure could be added in the account of those, in whose names ft^1^.1'^^^"'•^ ^•-^-flF;> .amiVpadma the bills were drawn, but it could not be added in the account of theAssessee. The appeal is 12. No illegality in the finding has been pointed out.concluded by finding of fact. 13. the appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.Sd/-Chief Justice Sd/-Manindra Mohan ShrivastavaJudge ^\