Commissioner of Income-tax-Central-3 v. Praveen Juneja
[Citation -2017-LL-0714-1]

Citation 2017-LL-0714-1
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax-Central-3
Respondent Name Praveen Juneja
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 14/07/2017
Assessment Year 2004-05
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags confirmation letter • unexplained income • legal infirmity • post-search enquiry • documents seized
Bot Summary: The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ITAT whereby it deleted the addition of Rs. 80,50,000 to the income of the Respondent/Assessee by the Assessing Officer, which order was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax CIT. 4. A search took place in the premises of the Respondent/Assessee pursuant ITA 56/2017 Page 1 of 3 to which certain documents were seized. The document on the basis of which the above addition was made was a piece of paper dated 24th November, 2003. The CIT rejected the above explanation on the ground that seized document nowhere contained the name Omaxe Ltd. Since the said document had been seized from the residence of Assessee, the CIT drew a presumption under Section 292C of the Act was that it belonged to him. Further, the CIT(A) proceeded on the basis that the figure of '8050' was in fact Rs. 80,50,000 and constituted the unexplained income of the Assessee since the Assessee had not submitted any evidence like a confirmation letter or any other document to show that expenditure related to Omaxe Ltd. 6. The ITAT in the impugned order noted that the document was silent as to the payer and payee of the amount in question nor does it disclose that the payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that the document is in the handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures. In the considered view of the Court, the addition of Rs.80,50,000 merely on the basis of a single document without making any further enquiry was not justified.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 56/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Puneet Rai, Advs. Versus PRAVEEN JUNEJA ..... Respondent Through : None. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER 14.07.2017 CM No. 2766/2017 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA 56/2017 2. This is appeal by Revenue against order dated 29th July, 2016 passed Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 3032/Del/2012 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2004-05. 3. Revenue is aggrieved by order of ITAT whereby it deleted addition of Rs. 80,50,000 to income of Respondent/Assessee by Assessing Officer ( AO ), which order was affirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ]. 4. search took place in premises of Respondent/Assessee pursuant ITA 56/2017 Page 1 of 3 to which certain documents were seized. document on basis of which above addition was made was piece of paper dated 24th November, 2003. It contained hand-written figure of '8050'. In two columns it set out details of purportedly expenses on drive way, tennis court, garden lights etc. in left column totalling '9.45' and some other expenses relating to architect, wooden fittings, bathroom fittings, etc. in right column totalling '13.45'. 5. explanation offered by Assessee was that he was director of Omaxe Ltd., company in construction business. He sought to explain that said paper containing estimates in relation to Omaxe Plaza project of company was with him in that capacity. CIT (A) rejected above explanation on ground that seized document nowhere contained name Omaxe Ltd. Since said document had been seized from residence of Assessee, CIT (A) drew presumption under Section 292C of Act was that it belonged to him. Further, CIT(A) proceeded on basis that figure of '8050' was in fact Rs. 80,50,000 and constituted unexplained income of Assessee since Assessee had not submitted any evidence like confirmation letter or any other document to show that expenditure related to Omaxe Ltd. 6. ITAT in impugned order noted that document was silent as to payer and payee of amount in question nor does it disclose that payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that document is in handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures. ITA 56/2017 Page 2 of 3 7. In considered view of Court, addition of Rs.80,50,000 merely on basis of single document without making any further enquiry was not justified. No attempt was made by AO to find out if in fact it constituted estimates relating construction of project of Omaxe Ltd. 8. In circumstances, impugned order of ITAT suffers from no legal infirmity and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 9. appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 14, 2017 dk ITA 56/2017 Page 3 of 3 Commissioner of Income-tax-Central-3 v. Praveen Juneja
Report Error