Dr Narendra Kumar Sahoo, Bolangir V. ITO, Bolangir

ITA 101/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7586 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIS N SAHU
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 69C; 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.101/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 DR. NARENDRA KUMAR SAHOO, AT: SUDPARA, PO/DIST: BOLANGIR, ODISHA VS. ITO, BOLANGIR PAN/GIR NO.AFMPS 1941 R (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRIS.N.SAHU, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 17 /10/ 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 /10/ 2016 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - BERHAMPUR, DATED 9.11.2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.3,20,000/ - UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FA C T S OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 7.3.2008 WHEN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ELDER DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTED IN THE FIRST YEAR OF MBBS COURSE 2 ITA NO.101/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 AT K IMS, BHUBANESWAR.. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT RS.4,20,000/ - WAS INCURRED DURING THE YEAR FOR THE ADMISSION AND EDUCATION OF HIS DAUGHTER AND THE SOURCE OF THE SAME WAS RS.1,00,000/ - CONTRIBUTED BY HIS WIFE SMT. JYOTIRMAYE SAHOO AND RS.3,20,000/ - BY HIS FATH ER SHRI HARI HAR SAHOO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CONTRIBUTION OF RS.1,00,000/ - BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. JYOTIRMAYE SAHOO ON VERIFICATION OF HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT BUT ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR CONTRIBUTION OF RS.3,20,000/ - BY SHRI HARI HAR SAHOO OR ANY CONFIRMATION FROM HIM, THE AO ADDED RS.3,20,000/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 69C OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL, LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT ON COMPARISON OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF DR. NAR ENDRA KUMAR SAHOO, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FILED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS FOUND THAT EVERYTHING IS SAME IN TWO STATEMENTS EXCEPT THAT IN THE COPY OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT FILED B Y THE AO, THERE IS NO WITHDRAWAL OF RS.3,20,000/ - BUT IN THE COPY OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THERE IS WITHDRAWAL OF RS.3,20,000/ - SHOWN IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT LD A.R. OF THE A SSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCES, LIKE AFFIDAVIT OR CONFIRMATION OR ANY BANK STATEMENT EVIDENCING SUCH A TRANSACTION OF MONEY TRANSFER IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT SHRI HARI HAR SAHOO PAID RS.3,20,000/ - . 5 . THE LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE COPY OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DULY CONTAINED THE ENTRY OF WITHDRAWAL OF RS.3,20,000/ - BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTRARY OBSERVATION MADE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO SHOW THAT WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF RS.3,20,000/ - . IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 3 ITA NO.101/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 HE PRAYED THAT FOR PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE ISSUE, THE CASE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE ORDER, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.3,20,000/ - AS IT HAS UNDERTAKEN TO DO SO BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE AO WILL BE FREE TO MAKE THE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69C OF THE ACT. WITH THESE DI RECTIONS, THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7 . THE OTHER ISSUE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.60,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL INCOME. 8 . AS I HAVE RESTORED THE FIRST ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO, I ALSO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE AO FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 /10/2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 17 /10 /2016 4 ITA NO.101/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : DR. NARENDRA KUMAR SAHOO, AT: SUDPARA, PO/DIST: BOLANGIR, ODISHA 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, BOLANGIR 3. THE CIT(A), B ERHAMPUR 4. CIT , SAMBALPUR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//