Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iiiludhiana v. Sonia Dhillon, Brs Nagar,Ludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ----- Income-tax Appeal No. 209 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.7.2010 Commissioner of Income-tax-IIILudhiana --- Appellant Versus Sonia Dhillon, BRS Nagar,Ludhiana --- Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT:Mr. Vivek Sethi, Standing Counsel for the appellant-assessee.for the appellant-assessee. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The Revenue has approached this Court under Section260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act’) and hasprayed that the following substantial questions of law arise in thisappeal for the consideration of this Court, from the order of theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh,(for short “the Tribunal”) passed on 28.5.2009, in Income-tax AppealNo. 147/CHD/2009 for the assessment year 2000-01: 1-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthecase, theHon’bleITATisjustified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,72,837/- made onaccountofunexplainedcreditinthebankaccount of the assessee. 2-Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesofthecase, theHon’bleITATisjustified indeletingtheadditionofRs. 6,50,000/- madeon account of unexplained investment in makingadvance to Sh Surjit Singh ”..ofthecase, theHon’bleITATisjustified indeletingtheadditionofRs. 6,50,000/- madeon account of unexplained investment in makingadvance to Sh Surjit Singh ”.. Onthebasisofanintimation that theassesseewashavingunexplaineddepositsinherbankaccount, amounting to Rs. 7,72,837/-, and further, she failedtoexplainthesourceofadvancesinthesumofRs.12,50,000/-, given to Surjit Singh, Sharanjit Kaur and M s/ .Goodwill Metal Ltd, proceedings under Section 147 of the Act,werestartedagainsttheassessee. Accordingly, a noticeunder Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on24.5.2006. Observingnocomplianceonbehalfoftheassessee, the Assessing Officer, after making additions of theaboveamounts, framedassessmenton 24.12.2007 under Section 144 oftheAct, atnettaxableincomeof Rs.20,97,837/-. The appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer met with partial success before-theCommissionerofIncome tax ( )- , AIILudhiana [( in short“theCIT ( ) ]. A ”Consequently, theadditionsofRs.7,72,837/- allegedtobeunexplaineddepositsoftheassesseeandofsumofRs. 6,50,000/- as unexplainedinvestment by means of advance to Surjit Singh, were deletedvide order dated 21.11.2008. In other words, the CIT ( )Agave relief to the assessee in the sum of Rs. 14,22,837/-.The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT ( ) Abefore theTribunal, byfilingITA 147/Chd/2009 whereas, assesseepreferred ITA No. 182/Chd/2009. The Tribunal affirmed theorder of the CIT ( ) Aand dismissedboth the appeals videorder dated 28.5.2009. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record . The Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 7,72,837/- on the basis of the fact that the assesseehad not been able to explain the credit of that sum in herbank account. An addition of other sum of Rs. 12,50,000/-wasmadeonthegroundthattheassesseehadnotexplained the source of that sum that wasshown to havebeen advanced to Surjit Singh and two others. As noticedearlier, the CIT ( ) Adeleted the addition of the entire sum ofRs.7,72,837/- which had been found to be an unexplainedcreditinthebankaccountoftheassessee, and deletedfurther addition of Rs. 6,50,000/-, out of the sum of Rs.12,50,000/- which had been observed to be an investmentby the assessee from unexplained sources. The finding oftheAssessingOfficerwasconsequentlyreversedtothatextent. TheTribunalputitssealofaffirmation on theorder of the CIT ( ). AWhile dealing with the challenge tothe addition in the sum of Rs. 7,72,837/-, the Tribunal, inpara 2 of its judgment, recorded as under: TheTribunalputitssealofaffirmation on theorder of the CIT ( ). AWhile dealing with the challenge tothe addition in the sum of Rs. 7,72,837/-, the Tribunal, inpara 2 of its judgment, recorded as under: “ Ihavecarefullyconsideredthecontentionoflearned counsel for the appellant and perused therelevant record. Though the appellant did not availtheopportunityforfurnishingthenecessaryinformationbeforetheAssessingOfficer, thedocumentsbeingcopyofbankaccountof theappellant, which is in question and the statementofS. BhupinderSinghDhillondated 27.4.2002beingverymuchonthefileoftheDDIT andwhich information is stated to have been obtainedbytheAssessingOfficerasperpara 3 of theassessmentorder, theAssessingOfficershouldhave taken these documents into consideration fordeciding the issue in hand. Further, in view of thefacts and circumstances explained by the appellantandwhichhavebeendiscussedabove, . .i e-appellant’s husband being bed ridden on account ofbeing chronic heart patient and the appellant beingonlypersoninthefamilytolookafter him andfurther she herself having suffered from depression etc. theadditionaldocumentswhicharejustcorroborating the factual position already stated inthestatementdated 27.4.2002 and the evidencewhich goes to the root of the issue in hand and isvery much relevant to impart substantial justice areadmitted. Coming to the merits of the case, asfarasthecreditsofRs. 1,50,000/- and Rs.6,22,837/- on 5.4.1999 and 7.5.1999 respectively,in the bank account No. 121 in Canara Bank areconcerned, ithasbeenconsistentlystatedthatthesedocumentswerereceivedonaccountofmaturityofcertainpoliciesfromPeerlsGreenForest Ltd., New Delhi. The amounts are shown tobe received by cheque as per the copy of bankaccountitself. Therefore, thiscontentionoftheappellant being verifiable from the record is to beaccepted. Itisfurtherseenthatthepremiumwhatsoeverpaidinrespectofthesepolicies waspaid during the period earlier to the period relevant to assessment year under consideration. Though itisshownthatthesepolicieswereoriginallypurchased by Shri Shad Nicklas, a paternal uncleto the appellant, and that the premium whatsoeverwere paid by him, without going into this aspect ofthecaseevenifthesourcesofthesame aretaken to be explained, the adverse inference couldbedrawnonlyfortheassessmentyearduringwhich the premium was paid. However, keeping inviewthefactualpositionasabove, as far asassessmentyear 2000-01 isconcerned, noadverseinferencecouldbedrawnagainsttheappellant. The addition of Rs. 7,72,837/- treatingthese receipts to be unexplained is, therefore, notin order and the same is accordingly deleted ”. As regards deletion of Rs . 6,50,000/- from loan amount of Rs. 12,50,000/-, the Tribunal recorded asunder: “Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer was alsoinformed that the assessee has given loan of Rs.12,50,000/- toShriSurjitSinghNanda, Smt.Sharanjit Kaur and to M s/ . Goodwill Metals Ltd. Itwas further pointed out that the assessee filed asuit in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana tothefactthattheaforesaidloanhasnot beenreturned. ThelearnedAssessingOfficer was ofthe view that the assessee has not explained thesourceofRs. 12,50,000/-, consequently, it wastreated that the amount has escaped assessment,consequently added as unexplained income of theassessee. Onappeal, thelearnedfirstappellateauthority found that the loan of Rs. 6 lakh paid toShri Surjit Singh is not explained, consequently, theadditiontothisextentwasconfirmedandtheremaining amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- was deletedwhichisunderchallengebytheRevenuebeforethe Tribunal. We have found that out of total loanofRs. 12,50,000/-, theamountofRs. 6,50,000/- was paid from same bank account No.121 videcheque No. 31306 dated 6.4.1999 and10.5.1999 respectively. Even otherwise, it is notthecasethatthelearnedfirstappellateauthorityblindlyacceptedthecontentionoftheassesseerather wherever he was not satisfied, he has notacceptedtheexplanationextendedbytheassessee, therefore, wehavenotfoundanyinfirmity in the impugned order, on this issue also,consequently this ground is dismissed ”. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunalwasinerrorinupholdingthedeletion of Rs. 7,72,000/-made by the CIT A( ) on account of unexplained deposit to theincomeoftheassessee. Itwasarguedthatthe findingrecorded by the CIT ( ) Aand affirmed by the Tribunal that asumofRs. 6,00,000/- wastheexplained amount of theassessee, iserroneous, perverseandagainstthe record.According to the learned counsel, the evidence on record hasnot been properly appreciated by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the Revenue made strenuous-efforts to persuade this Court to re appreciate the evidenceand record fresh conclusion on the basis thereof. But the--counselcouldnotpointoutanymis readingormisappreciation of evidence on the basis of which it could berecorded that the findings of CIT ( ), Awhich were approvedby the Tribunal, were erroneous or perverse in any manner.Theviewtakenbytheauthoritiesbelowisplausible viewbased on appreciation of evidence available on record. Noexceptioncan, therefore, betakentosaidfindings. We,therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 260A-oftheActwouldnotliketore appreciatethe evidenceavailable on record and record a different conclusion on thebasisthereofassoughttobecontendedbythe learnedcounsel for the appellant. In view of the above, we are of the opinion thatthesubstantialquestionsoflawproposedonbehalf of theRevenue do not arise in this case that may attract attention ofthisCourtfordecision. Theappealisconsequentlydismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 21, 2010*rkmalik* (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE