ITO, Wd-31(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Shri Kishan Kumar Pansari, Kolkata

ITA 101/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99661 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH SMC , KOLKATA [BEFORE HON BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ] IT A NO.101/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 ( A PPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T.O., WARD - 31(1) - VERSUS - SHRI KISHAN KUMAR PANSARI K OLKATA KOLKATA (PAN: AIQPP 3456 L) FOR THE APPELLANT: SMT. RANU BISWAS, JCIT FOR THE RESPONDENT: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 21 .07 .2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.08.2015. ORDER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A) - XIX, KOLKATA I N APPEAL NO . 1/CIT(A) - XIX/WARD - 31(1)/KOL/11 - 12 DATED 08.11.2013 FOR A.Y.2008 - 09 . ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY I.T.O., WARD - 31(1), KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR A.Y . 2008 - 09 VIDE I TS ORDER DATED 30 .12 .2010. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND : - (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD.CIT(A),XIX, KOLKATA WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,52,400/ - IGNORING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF INVESTIGATION THAT THERE MUST BE HOUSE PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH LOAN WAS SANCTIONED AND WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S.SHREE BALAJI UDYOG, WHO IS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION HAD AVAILED A LOAN FROM ICICI BANK AGAINST MORTGAGE OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 43, DOBSON ROAD, HOWRAH - 711101. THE SAID PROPERTY IS IN THE JOINT NAME OF WIFE AND SO N OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1990 FOR A SUM OF RS.1,40,400/ - . THE SAID INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF WIFE AND SON. AT THE TIME OF AVAILING THE MORTGAGE LOAN FROM ITA NO. 101/KOL/2014 SHRI KISHAN KR.PANSARI A.YR. 2008 - 09 2 ICICI BANK THE BANK HAD VALUED THE SUBJECT MENTIONED PROPERTY FOR RS.13,52,400/ - AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE SAME A SUM OF RS.8,20,620/ - WAS SANCTIONED AS BUSINESS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. THE LD. AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY , AO PROCEEDED TO ADD A SUM OF RS.13,52,400/ - BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69 OF THE I.T.ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). TH E LD. CIT(A) HAD GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE QUESTION OF SHOWING THE PROPERTY IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN THE JOINT NAME OF WIFE AND SON OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITI ON MADE IN THE SUM OF RS.13,52,000/ - WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. 4. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND M ATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE SUBJECT MENTIONED PROPERTY AT 43, DOBSON ROAD, HOWRAH - 711101 IS ONLY IN THE JOINT NAME OF WIFE AND SON OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN TH E YEAR 1990 FOR A SUM OF RS.1,40,400/ - . THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME WAS DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS STATED IN PARA - 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT THE SUBJECT MENTI ONED PROPERTY WAS VALUED BY THE BANKER FOR RS.13,52,400/ - AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAD AVAILED MORTGAGE LOAN OF RS.8,20,620/ - FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS JUST AVAILED A BUSINESS LOAN BY OFFERING THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND SON AS A COLLATERAL SECURITY TO THE BANK. I ALSO AGREE WITH THE FINDING GIVEN IN PARA 7.1. OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE QUESTION OF ASSESSEE DISCLOSING THE PROPERTY IN HIS BALANCE SHEET DOES NOT ARISE AS THE SAME IS ONLY IN THE JOINT NAME OF WIFE AND SON, WHO IN TURN HAVE ALSO ITA NO. 101/KOL/2014 SHRI KISHAN KR.PANSARI A.YR. 2008 - 09 3 DISCLOSED THE SAME IN THEIR BALANCE SHEETS. THIS FACT OF THE DISCLOSURE IN THE FILES OF ASSESSEE S WIFE AND SON IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR GROUNDS. 4.1. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES STATED HEREINABOVE I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNC ED IN TH E COURT . SD/ - [MAHAVIR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 03.08.2015. R.G.(.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1 . SHRI KISHAN KUMAR PANSARI, 157C, LENIN SARANI, KOLKATA - 700013. 2 THE I.T.O., WARD - 31(1 ), PURULIA. 3 . THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A) - XIX, KOLKATA 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY , BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES