TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matrix is that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 5,98,230/-. The return filed by the appellant was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after 'the Act') which was not taken up for scrutiny and hence no order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed. Thereafter, the AO received an information from the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-12, New Delhi, that in some ledger account found in possession of Sh. Chetan Gupta, by the Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana the assessee's name figure in the said ledger account. As per the information, a computer pen-drive was recovered from said Sh. Chetan Gupta. It was also informed that the names of certain persons appearing in the data of the said pen-drive were found and deciphered. As per the information, one name that appeared in the printout of the data on pen-drive was "N.S." the identity of which was deciphered as Natwar Singh, the assessee. From the printout of the ledger account in which the name "N.S." was entered into, which was made available to the AO from the data of the said seized pen-drive, the AO noticed that there were credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the addition of Rs. 30,50,000/- to the declared income of Rs. 5,98,230/-, thus totaling Rs. 36,48,230/-. 9. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition by holding as under:- "22. Now coming to merits of the aforesaid additions as made by the learned assessing officer, I find that there is no evidence which have been brought on record by the learned A. O. that the assessee had made an investment and such an investment stated to be credited in the books of accounts of third party namely Shri Chetan Gupta has been established to be the investment of appellant In my opinion it was the burden on the ACIT to establish that credits in the books of accounts of Shri Chetan Gupta which were in the shape of a pen drive, a print out of which was placed on record, were the investments made by the appellant. In the instant case the learned A.O. has not recorded any statement of Shri Chetan Gupta who could have deposed that the credits in the pen drive were of the assessee. Further, the learned A.O. has also not been able to bring any material whatsoever to support that credits in the pen drive were that of the appellant. 23. It has judicially been held that no addition could be m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case found from List in Pen drive) wherein the High Court in its judgement observed as under:- "there is no evidence in the possession of the revenue authorities to prove that the assessee ever paid cash to Shri Chetan Gupta except the so called report of ADIT Investigation, Ludhiana, which in turn is based on the report of Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. However, neither the report of the SP, Ludhiana is available to the assessing officer much less to the assessee nor any statement was recorded by ADIT (Investigation) from Sh.Chetan Gupta to corroborate that any cash was paid by the assessee to Sh. Chetan Gupta on his deposition before the Assessing Officer clearly denied having received any cash. Shri Chetan Gupta also denied having given any statement admitting receipt of cash. Therefore, in absence of any evidence on record, the addition was not sustainable. It is strange to note that the assessing officer having recorded the statement of Shri Chetan Gupta chosen to remain silent. This proves that in the statement of Sh.Chetan Gupta was no adverse factor affecting the tax liability of the assessee." 27. Thus in my opinion, the addition made by the learned A.O. by invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id cash to Shri Chetan Gupta except the so called report of ADIT (Investigations), Ludhiana, which in turn is based on the report of Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. However, neither the report of SP, Ludhiana is available to the Assessing officer much less to the assessee nor any statement was recorded by ADIT (Investigation) from Sh. Chetan Gupta. On the contrary Sh. Chetan Gupta on his deposition before the Assessing Officer clearly denied having received any cash. Shri Chetan Gupta also denied having given any statement admitting receipt of cash. Therefore, in absence of any evidence on record, the addition was not sustainable. It is strange to note that the Assessing Officer having recorded the statement of Sh. Chetan gupta chosen to remain silent. This proves that in the statement of Shri Chetan Gupta there was no adverse factor affecting the tax liability of the assessee. Accordingly, the addition was rightly deleted by the learned CIT(A)." 13. The aforesaid order was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 28.02.2011, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- "A pen drive of one Mr. Chetan Gupta was seized as per which the assessee had received certain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;ble High Court of Delhi which was rendered Vide order dated 28.02.2011 on identical facts and circumstances in the case of Sh. Raninder Singh, Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh 'B' Bench Vide order dated 30.06.2010 in the case of Maharaja Sh. Amarinder Singh in IT Act, 1961 No. 505/CHD/2009 for assessment year 2001-02 passed on identical facts and circumstances, CIT(A) XXX, New Delhi Vide order dated 26.03.2013 passed in appeal nos. 1181 and 1152/2012-13 for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, in case of Sh. K. Natwar Singh, appellant's husband, I hold that the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted on similar facts and circumstances. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 34,83,206/- made by the Assessing Officer is therefore deleted. This ground of appeal is therefore, allowed." 14. Furthermore, even in the case of Capt. Amrinder Singh, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had examined this matter and vide order dated 30th June 2010 deleted the additions. In the said order the bench had referred to the statement of Shri Chetan Gupta and noted as under:- "The relevant questions put by the Assessing Office and the replies of Shri Chetan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entries arises." 13. From the aforesaid replies, it is evident that Shri Chetan Gupta has denied any transactions with the assessee, and in fact Q.No.3 reproduced above, covers the period under our consideration." 15. In the light of the aforesaid statement, the c-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal was pleased to order as under:- "14. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix. In our considered opinion, it does not stand established that the assessee has made the impugned investment. We say so for the reason that the burden to establish the existence of impugned investment was on the Revenue, which, in the present case has not been discharged. Firstly, assessee denied the impugned transaction. Secondly, the claim of the Assessing Officer is based on the alleged evidence found on Shrl Chetan Gupta, and quite clearly said witness has not been confronted to the assessee at any stage during the course of assessment, although the same was specifically pleaded by the assessee. The said person is the witness of the revenue because it is on the basis of his testimony, It has been held that the assessee made the impugned investment. Therefore, non-affording of cross-examination make....