Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 337/2011 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. N P Sahni, sr. standing counsel . . . versus . . . DUA AUTO COMPONENTS PVT LTD ..... Respondent . Through Mr. Rakesh Gupta with Ms. Rani Kiyala, Advs. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 14.03.2012 . . . . . The Revenue, which has come up in appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 16.7.2010, has filed documents found and seized from the business premises of Manav Rachna Group of Companies. It is noticeable that the order of the Assessing Officer does not refer to, and mention, any of the documents. It does not rely upon any specific documents. The reason given by the Assessing Officer to make addition of `60,36,000/- is as under : . ?On the basis of the information/ report received from the DCIT (Central), New C.G.O. Complex, N.H. IV Faridabad that the Search and Seizure operations were carried out by the Investigation Wing at the . business and other premises of m/s Manav Rachna Group of Companies on 04-8-2005. During search certain incriminating documents were seized which indicated that the assessee company purchased an Industrial Plot No.3-8 Village Jharsentli Distt., Faridabad, Haryana (Plot measuring 8016 Sq. Ft.) The plot has been registered for Rs.13,20,521/-. The documents seized indicate that the assessee has also invested Rs.60,36,000/- in cash in this property which has not been declared in its return for the year. Thus it is clear that assessable income has escaped taxation to the tune of Rs.60,36,000/- . It may be worth mentioning here that it is not the duty of the Assessing Officer to run from pillar to post to collect evidence favourable to the assessee. It is the onus on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions entered into by it. This view is supported by the following case laws: - . Lal Chand Kalra v. CIT (1981) 22 CTR 135 (PandH) . Sajan Dass and Sons v. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435 (Del) . CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) . Sumanti Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) . Jaspal Singh v. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 306 (PandH) . . . It is clear from the above mention facts that despite availing number of opportunities the assessee has failed to discharged (sic.) the onus of proving the same and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the entire amount of Rs.60,36,000/- is added to the income of the assessee. I am satisfied that the assessee has submitted inaccurate particulars of its income and has concealed the taxable income to the tune of Rs.60,36,000/- and consequently penalty proceeding u/s 271(c) are being initiated on this point.? . . . ?? . ?? . . . 2. The order of the CIT(Appeals) refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pradeep Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 and hold that the primary burden of proof was upon the AO, which has not discharged with the help of cogent material. He deleted the entire addition. . 3. Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal raising the following ground : . . ?On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the C.I.T.(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.60,36,000/- paid in cash for acquisition of plot No.3-8, Vill. Jharsently, Distt. Faridabad (Haryana) as the sources of investment were not proved before the Assessing Officer in spite of several opportunities afforded to the assessee.? . 4. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue after considering the observations in the assessment order and the nature/reasoning given therein for making addition of Rs.60,36,000/- . 5. Ld. counsel for the Revenue is not able to defend the assessment order but submits that the Tribunal should have passed an order of remit and that the CIT(Appeals) had also erred in not examining the issue on merits and documents as its power are wide and broad. . 6. As far as second contention is concerned, it is apparent that the power and scope of jurisdiction of the CIT(Appeals) was never raised and argued by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The grounds of appeal are also silent in this regard. On the first aspect, it is not clear whether Revenue had filed seized documents before the Tribunal and had relied upon the same. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the seized documents, which have now been filed before the Court in the form of paper book, were not filed before the Tribunal. The documents which were filed before the Tribunal, have been filed as a paper book which has been filed by the assessee in this Court. . 7. The appellant i.e. the CIT concern will file an affidavit clearly stating whether the documents now filed by the Revenue were filed before the Tribunal or were filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. We clarify that the documents which were relied and filed before the Tribunal will be taken into account. . 8. List on 28th May, 2012. . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . MARCH 14, 2012/vld . . . $ 1 . . .