TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, 2820, 2821 & 2822/Del/2003 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2013 - Shri R. P. Tolani And Shri T. S. Kapoor,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rajiv Saxena Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Tarun Seem DR ORDER Per R. P. Tolani, JM :- These are 4 appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of CIT(A) relating to A.Y. 1992-93 to 1995-96. The same are heard together and being disposed of by this consolidated order for the same of convenience. 2. Following effective grounds are raised in respective assessment years: A.Y. 1992-93 - ITA no. 2819/Del/2003: "(i) The Profit loss account and the balance sheet referred by the assessing officer are the balance sheets prepared for the bank purpose and it includes the sale purchase of Tin Manufacturing Co. as being evident from the notes on the balance sheet as made by their Chartered Accountant. Assessee was made to file the return of M/s Steelex International after deducting the sale, purchase made for Tin Manufacturing Co. Assessing officer is not correct in taking the business income of Rs. 1,28,156/- a against the declared profit of Rs. 64,243.55 and that too in the hands of the assessee. (ii) The addition of Rs. 6,50,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessing officer contention that she is deliberately concealing the information is uncalled for as she is only the benami proprietor and does not have knowledge of business transactions. The explanation for has been given to CIT(Appeals) and he was satisfied also. (vi) The assessment of income in the hands of Mrs. Vandana Goyal is unjust, illegal and not based on facts of the case. A.Y. 1994-95 - ITA no. 2821/Del/2003: (i) That the learned assessing officer has erred in treating the income of M/s Steelex International Rs. 27,461/- in the hands of the assessee, in the light of the facts mentioned earlier. (ii) That the addition of Rs. 27,79,858/- is illegal, untenable and bad in law as the assessing officer has not taken cognizance of order of CIT(Appeals). As per para 5.2 of the order of CIT(A), CIT(A) has deleted the said addition and granted relief to the assessee, it seems that assessing officer has passed his order blindly and without any base. (iii) That the assessing officer has erred in adding Rs. 20,89,700/- money transferred from the H.O. Delhi to the account in Vishakhapatnam and Rs. 19,32,000/-for deposits made with the bank. The assessing officer without co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " 3. Brief facts are: The assessee is an individual, treated as proprietrix of a business run under the name and style of M/s Steelex International ("SI"). The assessee is the second wife of Shri S.P. Goyal, now deceased. Search and seizure operations were carried out by the Income-tax department u/s 132 of the Act on the various premises of entitees purportedly owned by Shri S.P. Goyal's group. It was emerged that there were various entitees owned by Shri S.P. Goyal, some of which are as under:- (i) M/s Bharat Tin Udyog - Proprietrix Mrs. R. Mani Goyal w/o Shri S.P. Goyal. (ii) M/s Dolphin Canpack Ltd. - a company in which Shri S.P. Goyal and his sons were directors. (iii)Goyal Estate Promoters - a company in which Shri S.P. Goyal and his sons were directors. (iv) M/s Steelex International was owned by the second wife Smt. Vandana Goyal (assessee). 3.1. The assessee being the second wife of Shri S.P.Goyal (hereinafter referred to as SPG)was also subjected to a search. The residential premises of the assessee were searched. Based on the various documents seized in the course of search notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 21.2.1993 for A.Ys 1992-93 to 1995-96 and as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .I. should be assessed as the income of the late Shri S.P.Goyal and not in the hands of the assessee. 3.2. Income tax disputes of S.P. Goyal group of entitees, department and the assessee traveled to CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi, who passed a common order dated 29-3-2000. Second appeals were filed by the revenue and assessee before ITAT. Revenue's appeals being ITA nos. 2900 to 2903/Del/2000 came to be decided by ITAT vide consolidated order dated 14- 9-2007. During the course of hearing of these several appeals, assessee could not remain present. After hearing the side of revenue and perusal of record, ITAT decided the appeals ex- parte qua assessee on merits dismissing revenue's appeals. 3.3. ITAT in its order dated 14-9-2007 made various observations on the pleas raised by assessee before CIT(A) and his finding thereon. CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee that she was acting only under dictates of Shri S.P. Goyal and was his benami. Therefore, the income of the alleged proprietary concern (SI) was benami of Shri S.P. Goyal and its income should be added in his hands and not assessee. CIT(A) apart from giving this finding, however, also decided some issues on merit also. The IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auditors of M/s S. I. Ltd. while auditing the account of the F. Y. ending on 31.3.1992 has given a note that the "opening stock of Rs. 1,27,95,797/"" represents the value of goods directly lifted by T'MC of India from Customs Department in the Preceding Year and the value of such goods transferred to TMC of India has been included in the amount of sale shown above" but the A.D. assessing the appellant for reasons best known to him has turned a blind eye to all these vital facts while assessing the appellant and thereby he has allowed the main culprit Shri S.P. Goyal and his family members to escaper dragnet of the tax which could have been easily fastened, rightly and legally fixed in their hands and not in the hands of the appellant who was merely a puppet dancing to the tune of her master, namely Shri S.P.Goyal, her late husband. ................................ Being the second wife of late husband SM SP Goyal she has not been given any asset by husband's descendants. It will be, therefore, in the fitness of things that all these high pitched assessments for all these five years excepting for the year 1986-87 be set aside before the A.O. to pass fresh orders after considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealing with grounds on merits some how dealt with them by confirming the order of CIT(A) deleting the additions on merits thus revenue's appeals were dismissed. The ITAT in concluding para also observed as under: "21. While deciding ITA 2902/Del/00 for the A.Y. 1994-95, we have already noticed that the CIT(A) held that income from the business of M/s S.I. is to be assessed in the hands of late Shri S.P. Goyal. The ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to make the assessment of income in the hands of Sri S.P. Goyal. Consequent to such direction of the CIT(A) the AO again made additions to the total income of the assessee which he had originally made in the hands of the assessee. The AO however made the assessment on a protective basis. While deciding ITA 2902/Del/00, ground no. 2, we have already noticed that one of the items of addition in that year was an addition of Rs. 27,79,858/- on account of purchases made outside the books of accounts. This addition was deleted by the CIT(A) and we have already confirmed such action of the CIT(A). The AO however made assessment of this income also on a protective basis. The CIT(A) on appeal by assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
