Ranjan Satyaranjan Mitra, Pune V. Income Tax Office, Ward -13 (2), Pune

ITA 1114/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0801 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1114/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ranjan Satyaranjan Mitra, H-704, Maestros Apartment, Salunkhe Vihar Road, Wanowre, Pune-411040. PAN : AAUPM8461H Vs. ITO, Ward- 13(2), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against the CIT(A)-5, Pune’s order dated 22.05.2019 passed in case no.PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO, Ward 13(2), Pune/10333/2018-19 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts making unexplained investment addition of Rs.16 lakhs; comprising of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.6 lakhs in HDFC Mutual Funds and Time deposits; respectively, Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 25.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2022 ITA No.1114/PUN/2019 2 I note at the outset that the CIT(A) detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officers’ action to this effect reads as under : “6. I have perused the material on record and the contention of the Appellant carefully. It was submitted before me as well as before the Assessing Officer that the source of investment in Mutual Funds and deposits was out of sale of Agricultural Land owned in Chandigarh. The aforesaid land was purported to have been purchased during the year 2001 and sold in Sept.2010 for a stated consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-. In his submission dated 07.05.2019, the Appellant stated that while selling the land he had signed few documents which were written in Punjabi script and therefore unreadable by him. Before me, he had submitted a translation of this document which is found to be a General Power of Attorney and in favour of one Shri. Nonihal Singh. The Appellant states that this was a trap which he did not realize due to his ignorance. The only plea he has taken is that the amount deposited in Kotak Bank for which statement is filed in respect of both, him and his wife, was received on the same date as the aforesaid sale. No other document or proof has been filed before me. 6.1 On considering the above facts, it is seen that the Appellant has been unable to furnish any documentary evidence whatsoever in support of his explanation regarding the investment in Mutual Funds and deposits. Though it is true that he had signed a General Power of Attorney on 20.09.2010 in respect of the stated Agricultural Land, yet in the absence of any Sale Deed, purchase deed or any other documents, it is impossible to decide the actual amount of money received and also whether the said sale did actually take place. There is absolutely no way to test the veracity or truthfulness of Appellant's submissions with regard to the investment made by him. In view of these facts, I am constrained to hold that the Appellant has failed to prove the source o Rs.16,00,000/- which has been invested by him during the year. The addition made in the impugned order is, therefore, correct and is upheld. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is dismissed.” 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to vehement rival contentions and find no reason to express concurrence with either party’s stand in entirety. Learned counsel has first of all contended that the assessee had received the impugned sum(s) from Shri Nonihal Singh in Chandigarh in lieu of an agreement to sell/power of attorney followed by payment of consideration by banking channel. He further claimed that the learned lower authorities have ITA No.1114/PUN/2019 3 not considered his regular salary income as well as the cash in hand accumulated since long. I make it clear that all these arguments prima-facie seem to be convincing since the CIT(A) detailed discussion has not taken note of all these clinching aspects. The fact also remains that the assessee could not prove all three pleadings the satisfaction of the learned lower authorities. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate to estimate the impugned addition to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent in any other case. The assessee gets relief of Rs.11,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. No other ground has been pressed at the assessee’s behest. 4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 30 th day of May, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30 th May, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-5, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.