Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenuebuilding, Statute Circle, Jaipur (Raj v. Shri Ram Babu Gupta, 12

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 43 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, New Central RevenueBuilding, Statute Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Ram Babu Gupta, 12-13, Patel Colony, Sardar Patel Marg,Jaipur ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 52 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Ram Babu Gupta, 12-13, Patel Colony, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 54 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Ram Babu Gupta, 12-13, Patel Colony, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 67 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Ram Babu Gupta, 12-13, Patel Colony, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 397 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Ram Babu Gupta, 12-13, Patel Colony, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 19 / 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Ram Babu Gupta, 12-13, Patel Colony, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 134 / 2017 Shri Ram Babu Gupta, 12-13, Patel Colony, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop SinghiFor Respondent(s) : Mr. N.L. Agarwal _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGHOrder 17/07/2017 In DBITA 19/2012, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs.18,72,200/-, made underSection 69B on account of undisclosed investmentin the property at Dudu, by the Assessing Officerwhich was confirmed by the CIT(A), ignoring thefact that the said addition was made andconfirmed after considering the statements of theassessee, documents seized during search andthe documents submitted by the assessee? ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in notconsidering the fact that the documents and thedetails submitted by the assessee were dulyconsidered by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) and thus there was occasion for it to restorethe matter back to Assessing Officer as no freshdocument was filed by the assessee even beforethe Tribunal? iii) whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the finding of the Tribunal is perverse,contrary to the record and untenable in the eye oflaw? 1.By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal preferred by the department. 2.This court while admitting the matter framed the following questions of law: In DBITA No. 43/2011 “i). Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs. 3,92,000/- which was made bythe Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in properties at M.I. Road, Jaipur, ignoring the statements of the assessee recordedunder Section 132(4) of the Act and thecorroboratory evidences found during search? iii) whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the finding of the Tribunal is perverse,contrary to the record and untenable in the eye oflaw? 1.By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal preferred by the department. 2.This court while admitting the matter framed the following questions of law: In DBITA No. 43/2011 “i). Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs. 3,92,000/- which was made bythe Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in properties at M.I. Road, Jaipur, ignoring the statements of the assessee recordedunder Section 132(4) of the Act and thecorroboratory evidences found during search? ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in notconsidering the admissible evidence available onrecord in the form of statement of the assesseeand the document seized and merely deleting theadditions by holding that the addition was madeby the Assessing Officer on estimation which doesnot borne out from the record? In DBITA No. 52/2011 i) Whether the Tribunal was justified is deletingthe addition of Rs. 4,99,000/- which was made bythe Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in purchase of property at Chitranjkan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, by holding that theproperty was not owned in the name of assessee,ignoring that the assessee himself hassurrendered an amount of Rs. 19,75,000/- withrespect to the said property and thus, there wasno occasion to hold that assessee was not theowner of the property? ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs. 19,20,600/- which was madeby the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in property at Pushkar, ignoring thatthe Sub Registrar has valued the property at Rs1,13,45,600/- as against Rs 94,25,000/- declaredby the assessee and thus as per Section 50C ofthe Act, the value adopted by the Sub Registrarought to have been applied? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs 43,00,000/- which was madeby the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in property at Jagatpur, when the saidaddition was made in light of the statementrecorded during course of search and wascorroborated by the document seized. (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs 33,00,000/- which was madeby the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in property at C-Scheme, Jaipur,ignoring the surrender made by the assessee andthe documents seized during search, whichrevealed that the investment in the property wasof Rs.1,20,00,000/- as against Rs 87,00,000/declared by the assessee? In DBITA 54/2011 "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,35,000/- which was made bythe Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in properties at M.I. Road, Jaipur,ignoring the statements of the assessee recordedunder Section 132(4) of the Act and thecorroboratory evidences found during search. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in notconsidering the admissible evidence available onrecord in the form of statement of the assesseeand the document seized and merely deleting theadditions by holding that the addition was madeby the Assessing Officer on estimation which doesnot borne out from the record. In DBITA 67/2011 (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs 33,82,420/- which was madeby the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in property at Dudu, ignoring thestatements of the assessee, the subsequentexplanation submitted by the assessee and thedocuments seized during search, which revealedthat the assessee has made undisclosedinvestment in the property? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in notconsidering the admissible evidence available onrecord in the form of statement of the assesseeand the document seized and merely deleting theadditions by holding that the addition was madeby the Assessing Officer on estimation which doesnot borne out from the record. In DBITA 67/2011 (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs 33,82,420/- which was madeby the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in property at Dudu, ignoring thestatements of the assessee, the subsequentexplanation submitted by the assessee and thedocuments seized during search, which revealedthat the assessee has made undisclosedinvestment in the property? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs.1, 17,04,000/- which was madeby the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedprofit earned in property at Dudu, when the saidaddition was made in light of the statementrecorded during course of search and wascorroborated by the document seized? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs 3,13,000/- which was made bythe Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in property at Ashok Vihar, ignoringthe specific statements made by the assessee anddocuments seized during the course of search? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs.36, 10,000/- which was madeby the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in property at M.I. Road, Jaipur,ignoring the statements of the assessee, thesubsequent explanation submitted by theassessee and the documents seized duringsearch, which revealed that the assessee hasmade undisclosed investment in the property? (v) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs. 96,00,000/- which was madeby the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in Property at C-20 Radha Marg, Jaipur, ignoring che statements of the assessee,the subsequent explanation submitted by theassessee and the documents seized duringsearch, which revealed that the assessee hasmade undisclosed investment in the property. In DBITA 397/2011 (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs. 17,35,817/- made by theAssessing officer u/s 50C of the Act and confirmedby the CIT(A), ignoring that the valuation of theproperty as per the Sub Registrar, Jaipur wasRs.30,35,817/- as against the value of Rs.13,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee in the saledeed. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs.20,00,000/ which was made bythe Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in property at Sri Niketan Apartmentand City Pulse, Jaipur ignoring the statements ofthe assessee, the subsequent explanationsubmitted by the assessee and the documentsseized during search, which revealed that theassessee has made undisclosed investment in theproperty. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs 30,75,000/- which was madeby the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosedinvestment in property at M.I Road, when the saidaddition was made in light of the statementrecorded during course of search and wascorroborated by the document seized? " In DBITA 134/2017 "Whether the Ld. ITAT was justified under lawwhile reversing the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) inrespect of set off of Rs. 2,51,60,000/- allowedinstead of Rs. 1,28,00,000/- allowed by the Ld.AO in the order of assessment during the AY2007-08, ignoring the fact that the addition onaccount of profit in Mehala Property added duringAY 2006-07 was shifted to AY 2007-08? Since both the parties have preferred appeals against thesame order in the interest of justice, we are of the consideredopinion that the matter is required to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh. In DBITA 134/2017 "Whether the Ld. ITAT was justified under lawwhile reversing the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) inrespect of set off of Rs. 2,51,60,000/- allowedinstead of Rs. 1,28,00,000/- allowed by the Ld.AO in the order of assessment during the AY2007-08, ignoring the fact that the addition onaccount of profit in Mehala Property added duringAY 2006-07 was shifted to AY 2007-08? Since both the parties have preferred appeals against thesame order in the interest of justice, we are of the consideredopinion that the matter is required to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh. In that view of the matter, only in the interest of both theparties, we have not observed anything on merits and quash andset aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter back tothe Tribunal for deciding afresh. The Tribunal will decide the matter after hearing both theparties. The appeals stand disposed of. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/74-80