Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle 2-1, Raipur v. Rajesh Kumar Mirani, Dhamtari

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURDIVISION BENCH CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, CJ.HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRAMOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.JHON'BLE SHRI MANINDRAMOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J TAXCASENo.43of2011 APPELLANT Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle 2-1, Raipur VERSUS RESPONDENTS Rajesh Kumar Mirani, Dhamtari INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260 A OF INCOME TAX ACT.1961 Appearance: Shri Atul Chaudhari, Counsel for the Appellant.Shri MK Sinha, Counsel for the respondent. ORDER (04th0ctober,2013) 1. This is an appeal by the Income Tax Department (the Department)against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench,Nagpur (the Tribunal) dated 24.10.2007 for the block period 1996-2002. THE FACTS 2. A search took place in the residence of Shri Rajesh Kumar Mirani,Dhamtari, (the Assessee) as well as in Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited,Dhamtari (the Bank) on 27.08.2002.It is said that the accounts of 126people found in the Bank were benami and were of the Assessee. 3,. The Assessing Officer (the AO) by his order dated 25.08.2006 addedthe total amount ofRs. 21,88,864/- depositedin126 accounts asundisclosed income of the Assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the[CIT-A).][ It][ was][ dismissed]on 29.11.2006. 5. Against the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal before theTribunal. It was allowed on 24.10.2007 and the amount added by the AO subbu as well as by the CIT-A as undisclosed income was set aside. Hence, thepresent appeal by the Department. THE DECISION 6. We have heard counsel for the parties. 7. This appeal was admittedon 15.11.2011 on the following substantialquestion of law:question of law: 'WhethertheTribunalwasjustifiedinholding that the Assessing Officer has madeaddition to the tune of Rs. 21,88,864/- on thebasis of conjectures and surmises.' 8. The Assessee was a Director in the Bank at the relevant time. In thesearch, nothing was found in the house of the Assessee. However, on thestatement of the Manager of the Bank at the relevant time, the AO as wellas the CIT-A had held the accounts to be benami for the Assessee. 9.There was nothing to connect the Assessee with the alleged 126accounts. The Branch Manager was not sure that these accounts were ofthe Assessee. In these circumstances, the Tribunal deleted the addition. 10.It is a finding of fact. It cannot be said that the judgement of theTribunal is based on the conjectures or surmises. 11.1n view of above, the question is answered against the Departmentand in favour of the Assessee. 12. The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed. Sd/-Manindra Mohan ShrivastavaJudge Sd/-Chief Justice