Sri. A.Subramaniam, Bangalore V. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

ITA 1026/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7593 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RENUGA DEVI JT BENGALURU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund; Additional evidence
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO. 1026/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 SHRI A. SUBRAMANIAM, NO.159/1, 2 ND MAIN, S C ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE 560 020. PAN: BDTPS 5111D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE RE SPONDENT BY : SMT. P. RENUGA DEVI, JT.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU. DAT E OF HEARING : 12 .06 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.07 .2018 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ORIGINALLY THIS APPEAL WAS HEARD BY THE SINGLE ME MBER BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND VIDE ORDER DATED 11.08.2017 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT] IN MP NO.48/BA NG/2018 AND POINTED OUT THAT GROUND NOS.3 & 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE NOT ADJUDICATED IN THE APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN MP NO.48/BANG/2018 BY ITS ORDER DATED 23.03.2018 RECALLED ITS ORDER DATED 11.08.2017 FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATING GROUND NOS.3 & 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 1026/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 2. GROUND NOS.3 & 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL READS AS FOLLOWS:- 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.1,50,000/- BEING THE AMOUNTS R ECEIVED FROM THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT INSPITE OF PROVING THE SO URCE OF SOURCE OF THE LOAN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT AD JUDICATING THE GROUNDS RAISED ON THE SHORT TDS CONSIDERED BY T HE AO, WHEN THE TDS CREDIT WAS MUCH HIGHER ON THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. AS FAR AS GROUND NO.6 IS CONCERNED, THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED CREDIT F OR TDS FOR RS.70,810, THOUGH ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM CREDIT FOR TD S OF RS.1,97,460. THE LIMITED PRAYER OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS TO DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE CORRECT QUANTUM OF CREDIT OF TDS TO BE G IVEN AND GIVE SUCH CREDIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T IT WOULD JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE AO TO CONSIDER THE PLEA O F THE ASSESSEE AFRESH ON THE QUESTION OF GRANTING THE CREDIT FOR TDS. THE A O IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 4. AS FAR AS GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000 BEING LOAN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS WIFE, SMT. P. SI REESHA. THE CIT(APPEALS) DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY COMING TO THE CO NCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF ASSESSEES WIFE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD POINTED OUT THAT THE SOURCE OF ASSESSEES WIFES INCOME WAS EXPLAINED BY FILING A COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF SMT. SIREESHA WITH ICICI BANK, BTM 2 ND STAGE, BANGALORE, A ITA NO. 1026/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 26-27 OF THE ASSES SEES PB. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A PPEALS), HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE OF SOURCE OF INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO FILED BEFORE TH E CIT(APPEALS) IS DATED 13.01.2017. EVEN PRIOR TO THIS REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDRESSED A LETTER TO THE AO; IN THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEED INGS PURSUANT TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E CIT(APPEALS); ABOUT HAVING FURNISHED ALL THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED BY THE A O IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE PROPER COMPLI ANCE IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS IS NOT TRUE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE IS CLEARLY DISCERNABLE FROM THE BANK STATEME NT AS SALARY OF ASSESSEES WIFE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE R EGARDING SOURCE OF FUNDS OF ASSESSEES WIFE AFRESH. 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENCE REQUIRES EXAMINATION AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED PER SE . 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE A ND THE QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE CREDIT OF RS.1,50,000 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS WIFE SHOULD BE EXAMINED AFRESH BY THE AO IN THE LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE WHICH WAS ALREADY FILED BEFOR E THE CIT(APPEALS). WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) O N THIS ISSUE AND REMAND THE SAME FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION BY THE AO, AFTER D UE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1026/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( JASON P. BOAZ ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 20 TH JULY, 2018. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. THE APP ELL ANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.