Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Inv) Circle 2(1) Raipur v. Shri Satish Kumar Dani

/;'!' 3'') J /M\<\'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. Tax Case No. 11 of 2006 APPELLANT Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Inv)Circle 2(1) Raipur.VERSUSShri Satish Kumar Dani, Prop. PradeepPaper Mart, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur. RESPONDENT INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAXACT.1961 Appearance: Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the Appellant.Shri BP Sharma, counsel for the Respondent. ORDER (23rd January, 2014) 1. This is a tax appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) by the Income Tax Department (the Department) against theorder dated 17.04.20Q6 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NagpurBench, Nagpur (the Tribunal) in respeot of Shri Satish Kumar Dani,proprietor, Pradeep Paper Mart, Jawahc: Nagar, Raipur (the Assessee)forthe block assessment period 01.04.1988 to 09.12.1999. THE FACTS 2. A search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the residentialpremises[of][ the][ Assessee][ on][ 09.12.1998][ and][ a][ survey][ under][ section]133-A of the Act was also held in the business premises on the sameday.Later on, the survey in the business premises was converted intosearchon 11.12.1998. 3.The Appellant surrenderedundisclosedincome of ?21lacson15.02.1999.Thereafter,he filed return on 27.11.2000 showing hisincome to be ?3 lacs.15.02.1999.Thereafter,he filed return on 27.11.2000 showing hisincome to be ?3 lacs. 4. The Assessing Officer (the AO)by his order dated 03.01.2001,enhanced the income at the hand of the Assessee to ?25,94,020/-. However, out of this amount, ?2,32,183/- was added for the undisclosedinvestment in the stock. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed ari appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the CIT-A). This appeal wasdismissed so far as addition of ?2,32,183/- was concerned. However, theappeal- IT(SS)A 71/Nag/2001of the Assessee was allowed by theTribunal on 30.09.2005 deleting the addition of?2,32,183/-. 6. In the meantime, the CIT-A also issued notices under section 263 ofthe Act and thereafter, by his order dated 08.03.2001, added a sum of?21 lacs towards the undisclosed investment in the stock. 7.Against the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal before theTribunal which was allowed on 17.04.2006 and the order of the CIT-Aadding ?21 lacs under section 263 of the Act was set aside.Hence, thepresent appeal by the Department. THE DECISION 8. We have heard counsel for the parties. 9. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 13.09.2006, however, noquestion was framed while admitting the appeal. 10. The counsel for the Department states that this appeal may beconsidered for the following two questions: '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the orderpassed[by][ the][ Commissioner][ of][ Income][ Tax][ u/s][ 263][ of]theAct and restoring the order of the AO passed u/s 158BC r.w.s. 143(3) ignoring the fact that no inquiries weremade by the AO during the assessment completed by.him.- - --" padma/amit 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal .was right in giving the impugnedfinding at the mere assertion of the respondents withoutcorroboration from any extrinsic or intrinsic sources anddrawing inferences without any basis.' 11-TheTribunalheldthat: The AO had added 72,32,183/- only towards the undisclosedinvestment in the stock after considering the statement of theAssessee;investment in the stock after considering the statement of theAssessee; This was also one of the possible view; and In case out of two possible views, one of them is accepted, then,the order cannot be revised under section 263 of the Act.the order cannot be revised under section 263 of the Act.There is no illegality in the reasoning or in the order of the Tribunal. padma/amit 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal .was right in giving the impugnedfinding at the mere assertion of the respondents withoutcorroboration from any extrinsic or intrinsic sources anddrawing inferences without any basis.' 11-TheTribunalheldthat: The AO had added 72,32,183/- only towards the undisclosedinvestment in the stock after considering the statement of theAssessee;investment in the stock after considering the statement of theAssessee; This was also one of the possible view; and In case out of two possible views, one of them is accepted, then,the order cannot be revised under section 263 of the Act.the order cannot be revised under section 263 of the Act.There is no illegality in the reasoning or in the order of the Tribunal. 12. Apart from above, the Tribunal has also held that there was nojustification to revise the order under section 263 of the Act as even theaddition of ?2,32,183/- on merit has been set aside by the Tribunal on30.09.2005 in Appeal- IT(SS)A 71/Nag/2001 , there was no justification torevise the order under section 263 of the Act. 13.Nothing has been pointed out or brought to our notice that the orderof the Tribunal dated 30.09.2005 has been set aside. 14. In view of above, no question of law arise for consideration in thisappeal.The tax case has no merit. ltjs_dLsmissed. Sd/-Sd/-<-'»iefJusticeManindra Mohan ShrivastavaJudge