Commissioner of Income Tax vs Hazari Lal

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—The Revenue has preferred this appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh, dated October 31, 2007, passed in IT (SS) A No. 18/Chandi/2001 (in a combined order passed in IT (SS) A. Nos. 18 and 38/Chandi/2001 and Co. No. 57/Chandi/ 2007 in the case of Shri Hazari Lai, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:

4.1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the non-existence of commission agency prior to the period relevant to the assessment year 1997-98 on the ground that the documents dated May 22,1993, found during search operation neither contained any mention of the assessee nor its relevance to the assessee particularly when on the contrary, the provisions of Section 158BB(3) of the Act specifically cast onus on the assessee to establish the non-relatability of the document found during search with supporting documentary evidence ?

4.2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing relief of Rs. 10,02,250 to the assessee on the ground that the document dated May 22, 1993, seized was not confronted to the assessee during search operation when the document seized at the time of search had been confronted to the assessee during the assessment proceedings ?

4.3 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing relief of Rs. 33,80,000 by merely relying on the statement recorded u/s 132(1) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee had failed to explain the documents seized at the time of search and that the Assessing Officer was empowered to draw an adverse inference u/s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act especially when the assessee failed to substantiate his liability with supportive documentary evidence ?

4.4 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,00,000 made on the basis of the seized document without plausible reasons particularly when the assessee failed to discharge his onus to explain the contents of the documents with any corroborative material in view of the specific provisions of Section 158BB(3) of the Act ?

4.5 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in granting relief to the assessee by recording a perverse finding contrary to evidence on record ?

4.6 Whether the findings recorded by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are legally sustainable in view of the admission made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings ?

Search operation was conducted on September 29, 1998, and certain documents were seized. During block assessment, inference of income from commission agency for sale and purchase of vehicles was sought to be drawn. Block assessment was made on the basis of inferences drawn from documents seized during the search, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

The Tribunal granted further relief to the assessee by recording the following findings:

We have considered the rival submissions carefully. We have also perused the document in question and the orders of the lower authorities as also the written submissions of the assessee to the lower authorities. On consideration of the aforesaid, we find that the crux of the dispute revolves around understanding the meaning of notations of the amounts and certain names found recorded in document No. 34 which was seized in the course of the search of the assessee. A copy of the said document has been annexed as part of the assessment order. Now, according to the Revenue, the. said document contains entries which depict either undisclosed incomes or undisclosed investments made by the assessee. Prima facie a glance of the said document does not show as to what it contains or what it means. The notations of the amounts and the names do not carry any description of the nature of the transaction as made out by the Revenue. Therefore, in order to make out an intelligible inference of such document, the same has to be deciphered by its author. Since it has been found from the assessee it becomes the duty of the assessee to explain the same. The assessee was confronted with the said document in the course of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain as why the impugned amounts be not held as unexplained investment assessable in the hands of the assessee. The plea of the assessee was that in so far as the amounts totalling Rs. 33,80,000 is concerned, the same reflects summary of payments which were due from various dealers and the payments in respect of which were to be made to the customers who sold the vehicles. The assessee submitted that he being in the business of commission agency, was only acting as a middleman in the sale/purchase of vehicles. The explanation of the assessee has been negated by the Assessing Officer as well as by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). According to the Revenue, certainly the impugned amounts reflected the amounts recoverable from sub-agents with regard to the vehicles sold through the assessee but the existence of the liability to hand over such amounts to the seller of the vehicles does not stand justified. Now, the response of the assessee to this is that he does not purchase and sell the vehicles on his own account. Therefore, there cannot be a situation where any money is due to be received from the buyer which was not to be handed over to the seller of the vehicle. Now, the question is that the document in question does not by itself speak fully. In such situation, in our view, the document is to be understood with reference to the explanation tendered by the assessee and circumstantial material, evidence and information on record. No doubt the assessee was found earning commission income on sale/purchase of vehicles in the course of search and such income was hitherto undeclared. For making the addition, the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the basis that the assessee also bought and sold the vehicles with own funds and not acted merely as a commission agent. It is not in dispute that the noting in the seized document relate to business of commission agency. Now, if the assessee is to be held acting only as an agent earning commission the impugned notings do not partake of the character of investments made by the assessee. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has proceeded on the basis that ''the line between a commission agent selling on commission basis or selling after purchasing it is very thin because it was not necessary in the short period involved to get the vehicle transferred in the asses-see''s name where he was selling it after purchasing from the seller''. We appreciate that there is a thin line between the two. So, however, the present case is relating to an assessment made in pursuance of a search conducted by the Department u/s 132(1) of the Act. Therefore, to infer that the assessee was selling the vehicles after purchasing on its own is an inference which was required to be deduced from the material, evidence or any other such information available with the Assessing Officer which was relatable to the evidence on material found during the search. In this light, we have perused the statement of the assessee recorded during the course of search, the seized material in question, the informations furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and find nothing to infer that the assessee was purchasing the vehicles and thereafter selling them on his own account. In fact, undisputedly a delivery book was seized at the time of search and the assessee contended that its examination does not reveal that the assessee ever purchased the vehicles on its own account and thereafter sold the same. This averment was made before the Assessing Officer. There is no rebuttal to this from the side of the Revenue. Therefore, to reach at such presumption and thereafter use it to decipher the contents of document No. 34 would be unjustified. In this situation, it is safe to deduce that the explanation tendered by the assessee with regard to the impugned notations is plausible and deserves to be accepted in the background of fact that the contra inference by the Assessing Officer is not based on any material. Therefore, we do not find any justification for sustaining the addition of Rs. 33,80,000.

Now, in so far as the addition of Rs. 14 lakhs is concerned, herein also we find that the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer in para 4.7 of his order that the assessee had made investment in flour mill is not based on any corroborative material. Now, with regard to the sum of Rs. 5,50,000 relating to the addition made on account of unexplained investment in milk chilling plant, in our view, the assessee has been successful in explaining that the same is relatable to his business interest in partnership firm M/s. Johri Mills, Samana, in which the income from letting out of milk chilling plant is derived. So, however, it is also important for the assessee to explain the nature of the noting in question and whether the same finds a proper place in the accounts of M/s. Johri Mills, Samana. This aspect, in our view, is factual in nature and has not been gone into by the lower authorities. Therefore, while setting aside the orders of the lower authorities this issue, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain as what is the nature of the said noting vis-a-vis the firm M/s. Johri Mills, Samana, in question. After considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on this issue. With respect to the addition of Rs. 3,18,000 also we find that no specific explanation has been furnished before the lower authorities. The assessee has not denied the relevance of the amounts in question and thus the onus was on the assessee to offer credible explanation in this regard. The explanations furnished by the assessee on this count have not been found to be satisfactory and thus the addition has been rightly sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

In the result, in ground No. 4 whereas the additions of Rs. 33,80,000 and Rs. 14 lakhs are deleted, the addition of Rs. 5,50,000 is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer the addition of Rs. 3,18,000 is sustained. Thus, on this ground the assessee partly succeeds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, by recording the following finding:

In this connection, we find that the factual aspect is that in the course of assessment, the assessee was asked to explain the household expenses. The assessee gave replies giving the detail of his family size and the level of expenses claimed to have been incurred to meet the household expenses in the period relevant to block period in question. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied and considering the social status of the assessee and the household articles, etc., owned by the assessee found the expenditure claimed by the assessee to be on the lower side. He made an addition of Rs. 5,37,239 as unexplained household expenses. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has since deleted the said addition by making the following discussion in para 7.3 of his order which reads as under:

7.3 The contention of the learned Counsel that the Department did not discover any evidence during the search and seizure which proved conclusively that the household expenses declared by the assessee was less than the actual and, therefore, no addition could be made u/s 158BC for it by simply estimating the expenditure is correct. Therefore, in view of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the assessee and the case law relied upon by him as also in view of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai "B" Bench, in the case of Sunder Agencies v. Deputy CIT [1997] 59 TTJ (Mum) 610, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for low household expenses is deleted from the assessment u/s 158BC. However, the Assessing Officer may take action u/s 148.

In this background, we have considered the validity of the impugned addition. Undoubtedly, the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is that no material of evidence was discovered during search which proved that the household expenses declared by the assessee was less than the actuals. In this regard we find that the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which we have extracted above, remain unrebutted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has held that the search u/s 132(1) has not proved that the household expenses declared by the assessee were understated. Therefore, following the aforesaid finding which remained uncontroverted before us, the addition made by the Assessing Officer becomes unsustainable. We hold so. Accordingly, on this ground the Revenue fails.

The second ground relates to the issue of unexplained investment in the construction of the house. The background and the manner in which the addition has been made at Rs. 1,94,008 on this count can be understood as follows. The Revenue seized from the residence of Shri Lajpat Rai photocopies of drawing plan of the house in which three brothers, namely, S/Shri Sat Pal, Lajpat Rai and Hazari Lal (the present assessee) reside. In comparison to the drawings found, the house appeared to have undergone major modifications. Therefore, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Department Valuation Officer (DVO) for valuation. The DVO submitted his report to the Assessing Officer valuing the property year wise as detailed in the order of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer after considering the valuation report dated September 21, 2000, which gave year-wise estimated investment made in the property and after comparing it with the investment declared by the assessee treated Rs. 1,94,008 as undisclosed investment in the construction of the house, as detailed in his order, after rejecting the explanation of the assessee.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Revenue and perused the record.

The findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence.

No substantial question of law arises.

The appeal is dismissed.