DCIT, Bangalore V. Sri. Guruprasad Ananth, Bangalore

ITA 1128/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51265 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income; Additional evidence; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 69; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N BARADHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1128/ BANG/2010 (ASST. YEA R 2007-08) THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), BANGALORE. . APPELLANT VS. SRI GURUPRASAD ANANTH, NO.392, 8 TH MAIN, AECS LAYOUT, B BLOCK, SINGASANDAR, BANGALORE-560 068. . RESPONDENT PAN AFMPP0970K. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR REVENUE BY : SHRI BALRAM R RAO DATE OF HEARING : 05.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.09.2011 O R D E R PER SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007-08. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) V AT BANGALO RE DATED ITA NOS.1128/B/10 2 30.06.2010. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMEN T COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO VERIFY THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AS PE R PROVISIONS OF RULE-46(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELE VANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3), IT WA S NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT HUBLI. A PROPERTY VALUATION REPORT DATED 14.8.2006 WAS FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO WHICH, THE PROPERTY IS VALUED AT RS.68 .10 LAKHS INCLUDING THE VALUE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO F URNISH THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT FOR THE PROPERTY AND ACCORDINGLY, HE FUR NISHED THE DETAILS OF BANK LOAN AVAILED OF RS.30 LAKHS ONLY AND NO DET AILS WERE FURNISHED FOR THE BALANCE INVESTMENT OF RS.38.10 LAKHS. IN V IEW OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.38.10 LA KHS AS ITA NOS.1128/B/10 3 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 6 9 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A) STATING THAT THE FIGURE OF 68.10 LAKS APPEARING IN THE VALUATION REPORT MERELY STATED THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES P ROPERTY AS ON 14.8.2006 AND IS NOT A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS.68.10 LAKHS IN THE SAID PROPERTY. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE SALE DEED OF THE PLOT WAS PRODUCED ACCORDING TO WHICH THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.4,80,000/- ON 9.12.2002 AND, THEREFORE, THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE SAID LAND AMOUNTED TO RS.4.80 LAKHS ONLY AND THE VALUE OF THE LAND IN THE REPORT I.E RS.24,00,000/- AS ON 14.8.2006 DOES NOT REPRESE NT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID LAND. AFTER REDUCING THE SAID DIFFERENCE OF RS.19,20,000/- (I.E RS.24,00,000 RS.4,80,000) FROM THE FIGURE OF 68.10 LAKHS, THE CIT(A) PROCEEDE D TO CONSIDER FORM NO.16 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004- 05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIALLY LARGE GROSS SALARY INCOME TO EXPL AIN THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY. HE, THUS DELETED THE A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. ITA NOS.1128/B/10 4 5. THE LEARNED DR WHILE RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF T HE AO SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY BASE D ON THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF INVESTMENT I N THE PROPERTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRO CEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, HAS CONSIDE RED THE SAME AND HAS ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL, WHICH ACCORDING TO H IM IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BUT FAIRLY ADMITT ED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO BECAUSE AO N EVER CALLED FOR THE SAME BUT WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) DURING AP PEAL PROCEEDING. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSIDE RED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CE RTAIN EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) WITHOUT EVEN ASKING FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND ALSO GIVING THE ASSESSING OFFICER A N OPPORTUNITY OF VERIFYING THE EVIDENCE AND SUBMITTING HIS OWN REMAR KS ON THE SAME, HAS CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AT ITS FAC E VALUE AND HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THIS IS AGAINST THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT RULES. IN VIEW O F THE SAME, WE ITA NOS.1128/B/10 5 DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FI LE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN RU LE IN RULE 46A AND DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE AOS R EMARKS AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5TH SEPT , 2011. SD/- SD/- (N BARADHVAJA SANKAR) (P MADHAVI DEVI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 05/09/2011 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, BANGALORE.