Cit v. Moorti Devi

MANMOHAN, J "vk"

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 26th July, 2010 % Judgment Pronounced on: 20th September, 2010 + CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate versus MOORTI DEVI ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No DIPAK MISRA, CJ In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "the Act") by the revenue against the order dated 19th November, 2009 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench "E" Delhi) (for short "the tribunal") in ITA No.1012(Del) /2008 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95, the following questions have been raised:- (i) Whether in view of seized material indicating payments over and above the disclosed value of the property preponderance of probability of entire value of the property as per the seized sale deed payment @ Rs.79,00, 000/- should not be taken as real value? (ii) Whether the burden of proof was not on the assessee and whether the assessee has not failed to satisfy the onus upon him? (iii) Whether ITAT has not erred in holding that the assessee had not been confronted with the seized documents especially when the A.O. has clearly shown the documents bearing her signatures and the assessee in her reply, stated that the signatures and the assessee in her reply, stated that the signatures shown to her resembles to her signatures? (iv) Whether the order of the learned ITAT is perverse as it has ignored the relevant facts on record? 2. To appreciate whether the aforesaid questions in actuality would give rise to any substantial question of law, it is apt to notice few necessary facts. The assessment for the year in question was completed on 21st March, 2001 at Rs.71,33,092/- as against the declared income of Rs.1,33,092/-. The foundation for the addition was that an information was received that certain documents relating to the assessee were seized during the course of search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act conducted on the business premises of M/s Shyam Garments. Against the original order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who, by the order dated 16th December, 2004, in appeal No.670/2001-02, confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. The assessee carried the matter in the second appeal before the tribunal which, by the order dated 4th April, 2004, set aside the order with the directions to make the assessment de novo. 3. After the remand, the assessing officer asked the assessee to explain her position with regard to the documents bearing her signature. The same is reflectable from the order dated 11th December, 2006. The assessee, as is evident, stated that none of the documents was ever shown to her. Thereafter, on 18th December, 2006 and 20th December, 2006, the assessing officer directed to produce the assessee in person to the Inspector of the Ward or record her statement if she is not in a position to move. Eventually, her statement was recorded at her residence and during recording of statement, she was shown the document bearing her signature and to identify her signatures. She, in the reply, stated that the signatures shown to her resembles with her signatures. The assessing officer taking note of the fact that the assessee had denied the consideration involved in the documents thought it appropriate to make local enquiries to find out the probable consideration involved at that time in the transaction. It was gathered from the enquiries that the consideration as referred to in the documents, that is, Rs.79 lakhs, looked to be genuine keeping in view the fact that the property is situated in a posh area and is admeasuring 400 sq. yards. Being of this view, the assessing officer treated the said investment as an unexplained inv