Hazari Lal v. Commissioner Of Income Taxpatiala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ---- Income Tax Appeal No. 976 of 2008Date of decision: 8.11.2010 Hazari Lal --- Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income taxPatiala --- Respondent CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ---- PRESENT:Mr. Pankaj Jain,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Central Govt. Standingcounsel for the respondent-Revenue. ---- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act,1961 (for short “the Act’”) has been filed by the assessee against theorder dated 31.10.2007, passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench “A”, Chandigarh (in short “the Tribunal”)in ITA No. 18/CHANDI/2001, relating to block period from 1.4.1988 to22.9.1998 The assessee has claimed the following substantialquestions of law for determination by this Court: 1-Whether the Tribunal order is sustainable in making anestimation of addition u/s 158B(b) by the multiplication ofestimation of addition u/s 158B(b) by the multiplication of receipts being dehors the material available? 2-Whether the Tribunal order is sustainable in confirmingthe addition of Rs. 3,18,000/- being contrary to the modusthe addition of Rs. 3,18,000/- being contrary to the modus operandi and the nature of transactions carried on by the assessee? 3-Whether the assessee be granted the benefit oftelescoping of the additions sustained in the unexplainedincome?telescoping of the additions sustained in the unexplainedincome? In brief, the facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal are that the assessee is engaged in the business ofcommission agency for purchase and sale of vehicles and having theinterest limited to the extent of commission. On 22.9.1998, a searchoperation was carried on the residential premises of the assesseeunder Section 132(1) of the Act, and pursuant thereto a notice underSection 158BC was served on him. Assessment was framed videorder dated 29.9.2000, Annexure A-1, but while framing assessmentthe assessing authority made additions on various counts, but theassessee disputed only the addition on account of estimation ofincome for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 (upto 22.9.1998) and regarding the adhoc addition of Rs. 3,18,000/- .Aggrieved by the order, Annexure A-1, the assessee filed appealbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafterreferred to as “CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) upheld the order of theassessing officer vide order dated 27.3.2001, Annexure A-2. The assessee still dissatisfied assailed the order of theCIT(A) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the appealvide order under appeal sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,18,000/-only. We have heard learned counsel for the parties andperused the record. The only point that arises for consideration in the appealis, whether the addition which has been made by the assessingofficer on account of unexplained investment in miscellaneous itemsamounting to Rs. 3,18,000/- and affirmed by the CIT(A) and upheldby the Tribunal, is valid or not. The assessing officer had made thisaddition of Rs. 3,18,000/- on the ground that in the seized documentsin the 3[rd] column therein various miscellaneous items like Rs.40,000/- in Indira Vikas Patras etc. had been written, the total ofwhich was Rs. 3,18,000/- and the reply furnished by the assesseewas not satisfactory which led to addition of this amount in theundisclosed income. The Tribunal while rejecting the explanation ofthe assessee had recorded as under: The only point that arises for consideration in the appealis, whether the addition which has been made by the assessingofficer on account of unexplained investment in miscellaneous itemsamounting to Rs. 3,18,000/- and affirmed by the CIT(A) and upheldby the Tribunal, is valid or not. The assessing officer had made thisaddition of Rs. 3,18,000/- on the ground that in the seized documentsin the 3[rd] column therein various miscellaneous items like Rs.40,000/- in Indira Vikas Patras etc. had been written, the total ofwhich was Rs. 3,18,000/- and the reply furnished by the assesseewas not satisfactory which led to addition of this amount in theundisclosed income. The Tribunal while rejecting the explanation ofthe assessee had recorded as under: “With respect to addition of Rs. 3,18,000/- also, we findthat no specific explanation has been furnished beforethe lower authorities. The assessee has not denied therelevance of the amounts in question and, thus, the onuswas on the assessee to offer credible explanation in thisregard. The explanations furnished by the assessee onthis count have not been found to be satisfactory and,thus, the addition has been rightly sustained by the Ld.CIT(A).” Learned counsel for the assessee was unable to point out that the findings concurrently recorded by the assessing officer, theCIT(A) and the Tribunal while sustaining the addition of Rs.3,18,000/- was erroneous or perverse in any manner. Only an effortwas made by the counsel for re-appreciation of evidence by thisCourt which is not within the ambit of Section 260A of the Act. Asnoticed earlier, the explanation furnished by the assessee was notaccepted by any of the authorities below. The Tribunal has taken aplausible view. In view of the above no substantial question of law arisesin this appeal. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the sameis dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) November 8, 2010 JUDGE*rkmalik*