Mukul Bikas Maity, Purba Medinipur V. ITO, Ward 27(4), Haldia, Haldia

ITA 1038/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1173 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOUMYAJIT DASGUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Source of fund
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1038/KOL/2017-MUKUL BIKKAS MAITRY A.Y.2009-1 0 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH SMC K OLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM] ITA NO.1038//KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 MUKUL BIKAS MAITY VERSUS- I.T.O., WARD-27(4 ) PURBA MEDINIPUR HALDIA. (PAN: AIVPM 5312 N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCAT E FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SOUMYAJIT DASGUPTA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 08.09.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2017. ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(A)-7, KOLKATA RELATING TO A.Y. 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1) THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 7, KOLKATA WAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDING TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,45,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2) THAT THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (APPEAL) - 7, KOLKATA IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,45,.000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED TO THE FACTS OF THE CAS E. 3) THAT WHEN LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND RE PORT MADE A POSITIVE FINDING AS TO INVESTMENTS MADE FROM DISCLOSED SOURCES, IT W AS WRONG ON THE PART OF LD. CIT (APPEALS) - 7 TO IGNORE HIS CATEGORICAL FINDING BY SUBSTITUTING HIS OWN ESTIMATES. 4) I MAY ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE 'DATE OF HEARING. ITA NO.1038/KOL/2017-MUKUL BIKKAS MAITRY A.Y.2009-1 0 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AN DERIVES INOCME FROM CONTRACTS. HE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 16.11.2009 FOR A.Y.2009-10 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME OF RS.8,24,830/-. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INTEREST INCO ME FROM PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND HAD NOT OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION. THE AO A LSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A TERM DEPOIST IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AMOUNTING TORS .5,10,015/-. THE SAME WAS ADDED UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69 B OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT.) 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER ON APPEAL. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CHANGED THE EXPLAN ATION GIVEN INITIALLY AND CLAIMED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN TERM DEPOIST WAS FROM OUT OF CASH IN HAND OF RS.6,53,958/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED A BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2008 DIS CLOSING CASH IN HAND AT RS.6,53,958.04 AND CLAIMED THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE M ADE OUT OF THIS CASH BALANCE. THE LD. CIT(A) PROJECTED THIS EXPLANATION AS AN AFTER T HOUGHT. NEVERTHELESS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OPENING CASH IN HAND IS RS.2,00,000/- AND GRANTED RELIEF. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FI ND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PARTLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT H AD CERTAIN CASH BALANCE. THE DEPOSITS IN QUESTION ARE AS FOLLOWS :- FDR NO. IN BANK DATE OF MADE FD AMOUNT PR 9700 PNB,HALDIA BR. 01/18/2008 95000 PR 10674 -DO- 05/03/2008 18679 PR 10425 -DO- 04/08/2008 250000 PR 11646 -DO- 08/18/2008 25000 PR 12247 -DO- 10/16/2008 100000 PR 12256 -D0- 10/16/2008 200000 PR 13307 -DO- 11/14/2008 30000 PR 144494 -DO- 01/10/2009 40000 7,58,679 OUT OF THIS AMOUNT AN ADDITION OF RS.5,10,051/- HAS BEEN MADE DURING THE YEAR. THE FIST DEPOSIT IS MADE ON 18.01.2008. AS THIS DOES N OT FALL IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELATABLE TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE SAME HAS TO BE DELETED. SIMILAR FIXED DEPOSITS ON 03.05.2008 OF RS.18,679/-, 18.08.2008 OF RS.25,000/ -, 14.11.2008 OF RS.30,000/- AND ITA NO.1038/KOL/2017-MUKUL BIKKAS MAITRY A.Y.2009-1 0 3 10.01.2009 OF RS.40,000/-HAS TO BE DELETED AS THE A SSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS AS OPENING AND RUNNING CASH BALANCE S. THUS THIS AMOUNT OF RS.4,45,000/- IS DELETED. THE BALANCE ADDITON MADE BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS SUSTAINED U/S 69B OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED IN PART. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31.10.2017. SD/- [ J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31.10.2017. [RG SR.PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.MUKUL BIKAS MAITY, DWARIKAPUR, TATANALA, BHAGWANP UR, PURBA MEDINIPUR (W.B.)- 721458. 2. I.T.O., WARD-27(4), HALDIA. 3. C.I.T.(A)- 7, KOLKATA 4. C.I.T-9, KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O, ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES