Commissioner Of Incometax- Central-3 v. Shri Praveen Juneja

$~11 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 57/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX- CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Through :Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. PuneetRai, Advs. Versus SHRI PRAVEEN JUNEJA ..... Respondent Through :None. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH % O R D E R14.07.2017 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 29[th]July, 2016 passedtheIncomeTaxAppellateTribunal(‘ITAT’)inITANo.3031/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2003-04. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ITAT whereby it deleted theaddition of Rs. 49 lakhs to the income of the Respondent/Assessee by theAssessing Officer (‘AO’), which order was affirmed by the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’]. 3. A search took place in the premises of the Respondent/Assessee pursuantto which certain documents were seized. The document on the basis ofwhich the above addition was made was a piece of paper (identified as Annexure-2. This was a hand written paper purportedly containing details ofhouse construction expenses of Rs. 49 lakhs out of which Rs. 29. 70 lakhshas already been paid. 4. The explanation offered by the Assessee was that the said paper was notrelated to him the assessee. He was working as a professional director inShamken Multifab Ltd. and used to handle various projects of the saidcompany. The CIT (A) rejected the above explanation. Since the saiddocument had been seized from the residence of Assessee, the CIT (A) drewa presumption under Section 292 C of the Act was that it belonged to him.Further, the CIT(A) proceeded to hold that Rs. 49 lakhs constituted theunexplained income of the Assessee since the Assessee had not submittedany evidence like a confirmation letter or any other document to show thatexpenditure related to any project of the aforementioned company. 5. The ITAT in the impugned order noted that the said document "does notindicate if it pertains to the assessee nor the address and location of theproperty is mentioned therein nor such property has been located by the AOduring the assessment proceedings. The AO has also not brought on recordany forensic evidence to prove the handwriting of the loose paper reliedupon by him to make the addition, which is exclusively made on the basis ofsuspicion and guesswork. Even no corroborative material has brought onrecord by the AO to substantiate the addition nor the CIT(A) has called forany remand report seeking corroborative evidence, if any." 6. In the considered view of the Court, the addition of Rs. 49 lakhs to the returned income of the Assessee was based on surmises and conjectures andthat too on the basis of a single document without making any furtherenquiry. No attempt was made by the AO to find out if in fact it constitutedthe construction expenses of any project of the aforementioned company ofwhich the Assessee was a director. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the ITAT suffers from nolegal infirmity and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J JULY 14, 2017dk PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J