Woes v. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another

ITA-144-1999 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA-144-1999 (O&M)Date of Decision : 6.11.2019 Sh. Balbir Chand Virmani woes APPEllant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax and another oe Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI* HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN888 Present ;Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Varun Issar, Junior Standing counselfor the respondents, 888 AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) inThis appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.6.1999 of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar ITAT) allowing an appealfiled by the Revenue wherein it had challenged the deletion of certainadditions done by the Commissioner. ?DBrief facts of the case are that some additions had been madeby the Assessing Officer during a search and seizure operation at thebusiness and residential premises of the assessee on 12.5.1989, duringthat procedure certain books and documents were found. During thecourse of assessment procedure in the year 1989-90 the assessee hadStated that certain entries (which were found in the books of account ITA-144-1999 (O&M) which was seized during the search and seizure) would be explained inthe next financial year that is 1990-91. However, subsequently noexplanation was furnished and thus he made an addition of Rs.1,34,870/-treating as assessee's income from outside sources in the books ofaccount. | 3In appeal the Commissioner held that since the documentswhich were recovered did not bear the handwriting of the assessee andany person associated with him, he was not bound to disclose what theywere representing and consequently, deleted those additions. | 4In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal held thatfigures which were written ina diary which was seized from the house ofthe assessee would have to be explained to some extent at least, and theassessee could not get away merely by asserting that even though thosediaries were recovered from him yet since the handwriting was not provedto be his, he had no duty at all to explain about all those figures. TheTribunal also noticed that the assessee had initially owned these entriesand had stated that they were of subsequent years i.e. 1990-91 and hewould explain them in that year's return but he did not explain them. 5 In our considered opinion, the reasoning adopted by theTribunal is correct while that adopted by the Commissioner was perverse.Once the assessee accepted the documents which were seized from hispremises, and once he had owned the entries and undertaken to explainthem in the next financial year and had not offered any explanationwhatsoever the amount representing were rightly added to other incomeot the assess. onThere is another dispute regarding application of Gross ITA-144-1999 (O&M) Profit (GP) rate on the difference of the stock which was physical presentin stock register. In regard to this issue, the finding of the Tribunal is apure finding of tact and no sufficient cause has been shown to us toreverse the same. vaConsequently, the appeal stands dismissed. 8 Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARTD)JUDGE(ALKA SARIN)JUDGE6.11.2019anuradhaWhether speaking/reasoned3Yes/NoWhether reportable3Yes/No