RAI BAHADUR RAGHBIR SINGH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXI, New Delhi

[“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 01/02/2012 for Assessment Year

2003-04. Grounds taken in this appeal are as under:

Rai Bahadur Raghbir Singh Educational Society vs. DCIT “The Appellant challenges the impugned order on the following among other grounds of appeal:

A. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in fact as well as in law in confirming the addition of the Sum of Rs. 18,25,000/- made by the Ld. AO to the income of the Appellant under section 69C;

B. The finding by the Learned CIT(A) that the alleged documents represented any deemed income far less unexplained expenditure incurred by the Appellant is perverse. The Learned CIT(A)'s reading of the alleged documents is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and the inferences drawn from such a reading of thereof is perverse and malafide;

C. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in appreciating the facts of the case and has arbitrarily concluded that the Ld. AO allowed any reasonable opportunity to the Appellant as envisaged in law and in consonance with the cannons of natural justice. The assessment is even otherwise bad in law for the insufficiency of any reason to believe to warrant the action of reopening the assessment. Further the assessment is based on an invalid return of income and is liable to be cancelled on this short ground alone;

D. The Learned CIT (A) further erred in holding that ground of appeal no. 1 before it questioning the legal sustainability of the Ld. AO's assessment order was a general ground and required no adjudication. Not having adjudicated the same the impugned order is liable to quashed on this short ground alone. The assessment order having been challenged as being bad in law ought to have been adjudicated to enable the Appellant to avail of his due rights in law; Rai Bahadur Raghbir Singh Educational Society vs. DCIT E. The learned CIT (A) completely erred in upholding the unfair, unjust arbitrary and unreasonable tenets upon which the Ld. AO proceeded to saddle the Appellant with illegal and unlawful additions.

F. The Appellant craves leave to be permitted to raise any other or further ground at the time of hearing of the Appeal and also to seek permission to file a paper book in support of its contentions.”

(B) In this case, the assessment order dated 03/12/2010 was passed by Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) u/s 143(3)/147 of Income Tax Act wherein the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.18,25,000/- as against returned income of Nil. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.18,25,000/- was made on account of unexplained expenditure. The assessee filed appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid assessment order dated 03/12/2010. Vide impugned appellate order dated 01/02/2012, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the aforesaid addition of Rs.18,25,000/- and dismissed the assesse’s appeal. The present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 01/02/2012. The appeal in ITAT was initially disposed off vide order dated 15/03/2016 by Co-ordinate Bench of Page 3 of 5 Rai Bahadur Raghbir Singh Educational Society vs. DCIT ITAT, Delhi. However, the aforesaid order dated 15/03/2016 was recalled by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi vide subsequent order dated 10/10/2022 and the appeal was restored.

(B.1) At the time of hearing before us, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee side, we heard the Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue. He relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Relevant portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below:

“The only effective ground is regarding addition of Rs.18,25,000/- made u/s 69 of the Act on the basis of incriminating documents recovered from the appellant during the survey operation at the premises of the appellant. As per document seized the appellant had paid Rs.1,75,000/- for Mrs. Veena Singh and received Rs.16,50,000/- in cash from Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad. These two documents are self speaking and not a dumb document. Since they are recovered from the premises of the appellant the onus was on the appellant to explain to whom it pertain to if not relating to itself. The normal presumption is that the contents of the documents are true. On being asked the appellant could not furnish any evidences to substantiate its claim that these amounts were not paid or received by the appellant society. Before me also nothing new was said to explain those documents. Since the additions were made on the basis of incriminating documents and the appellant has failed to explain them. I find no reason to interfere with the order of the AO and thus the addition is upheld.”

(B.2) No material has been brought for our consideration from either side to persuade us to take a view different from view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated Rai Bahadur Raghbir Singh Educational Society vs. DCIT 01/02/2012. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is found to be reasonable having regard to applicable law and the relevant facts and circumstances. Therefore, the impugned appellate order dated 01/02/2012 of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the present appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

(C) In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16/03/2023.