Sham Sunder v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Jalandhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 94 of 2009Decided on : 14.01.2016 Sham Sunder Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jalandhar . . . Appellant . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the respondent. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The appellant-assessee has preferred the present appeal underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') against theorder passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench,Amritsar (in short 'the Tribunal') dated 12[th] September, 2008, passed in ITANo. 373 (ASR)/2007 (The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II,Jalandhar Vs. Sh. Sham Sunder, Jalandhar). 2.The aforesaid appeal was admitted on February 16, 2010 fordetermination of the following substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether the Tribunal mis-directed itself in law as wellas on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.15,91,672/-made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of thestatement of the appellant-assessee recorded during thesurvey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961having no evidentiary value in law?as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.15,91,672/-made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of thestatement of the appellant-assessee recorded during thesurvey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961having no evidentiary value in law? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted illegally and perversely inupholding the addition of Rs. 9 lacs made by theAssessing Officer, received by the appellant by way ofgifts, representing income from undisclosed sourcesliable to assessed under Section 68 of the Income TaxAct?” 3.In view of the consensus between the parties, it is not necessaryto delve into the detailed facts of the case. Learned counsel for theappellant-assessee submitted that so far as question No.1 is concerned, sincethe assessee had made surrender of `15.00 lacs at the time of survey underSection 133A of the Act on 14[th] August, 2003, the said addition is not beingchallenged. However, the addition of ` 91,672/- sustained by the Tribunalon account of stock of unaccounted gold and diamond being an afterthoughtwas uncalled for. According to the learned counsel, the amount of`91,672/- was entered in the regular Books of Account and in such asituation, the addition of `91,672/- was unsustainable. 4.Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate appearing for the respondent-revenue had sought time on an earlier date to verify whether the amount waspart of the regular Books of account or not? Learned counsel for therespondent-revenue candidly admitted that a communication dated14.01.2016 has been received from the Department confirming that`91,672/- was part of the impounded material of the assessee and wasdepicted in the regular Books of Account and therefore, the addition to thatextent may be set aside. Copy of the aforesaid communication produced bythe learned counsel for the respondent-revenue is taken on record, subject toall just exceptions. above, the addition of `91,672/-, on account of stock of unaccounted goldand diamond sustained by the Tribunal is hereby deleted and the questionNo.1 is answered accordingly by holding that out of the addition of`15,91,672/-, addition of `91,672/- stands deleted. above, the addition of `91,672/-, on account of stock of unaccounted goldand diamond sustained by the Tribunal is hereby deleted and the questionNo.1 is answered accordingly by holding that out of the addition of`15,91,672/-, addition of `91,672/- stands deleted. 6.Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee did not address anyarguments on account of gifts of `9.00 lacs as sustained by the AssessingOfficer as well as by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and theTribunal on the ground that the said gifts were received from Sh. BhupinderSingh and Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, who were not the blood relation andtherefore had been rightly disallowed by the authorities below.7.In view of the above, question No.2 is answered against theassessee and the present appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE January 14, 2016J.Ram (RAJ RAHUL GARG) JUDGE