EDWARD P. NADAR, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 23(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1204/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0656 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JUSTIN LD
• Assessee Lawyers: C V DHARKAR LD
• Section: 69C; 144

Judgement Text

ITA.NO.1204/MUM/2015 EDWARD P. NADAR ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.1204/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) EDWARD P NADAR FLAT NO.103, MARIGOLD MARIDIAN LAKE ROAD BHANDUP(W) MUMBAI-400 078 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(1)(4) MUMBAI ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. ADUPN-5685-M ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : C.V.DHARKAR, LD.AR RE VENUE BY : V.JUSTIN, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 21/12/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/01/2018 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2009-10 CONTEST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-40 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-40 / ITO23(1)(4) / 11 / 2012-13 DATED 30/12/2014 QUA CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN ADDITION U/S 69C ITA.NO.1204/MUM/2015 EDWARD P. NADAR ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 2 FOR RS.9.95 LACS. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WA S FRAMED BY LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(1)(4), MUMBAI [AO] U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 28/12/2011. 2. PURSUANT TO RECEIPT OF CERTAIN AIR INFORMATION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PROPERTY FOR RS.50,90,350/-. S INCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION / DETAILS AGAINST TH E SAID INVESTMENT, THE SAME RESULTED INTO AN ASSESSMENT U/S 144 WHERE THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE MATTER WIT H PARTIAL SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/12/2 014 WHERE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND EXPLAI NED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSI DERING THE FACTUAL MATRIX, RESTRICTED THE ADDITIONS TO RS.9.95 LACS. A GGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE [AR], WHILE CON TESTING THE ADDITION DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE IM PUGNED ADDITION COULD NOT EXCEED RS.6 LACS SINCE THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMEN T TO THE BUILDER PARTLY OUT OF CHEQUES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY OUT OF CASH DEPOSITED MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. PER CONTRA, LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) WAS BA SED ON FACTUAL MATRIX AND THEREFORE, REQUIRED NO INTERFERENCE. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CONTENTIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE PAYME NT OF RS.16 LACS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE SAID PAYMENT IS P ARTLY SOURCED OUT OF CHEQUES AGGREGATING TO RS.7.50 LACS. OUT OF THE REM AINING BALANCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THE SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2.50 LACS. ITA.NO.1204/MUM/2015 EDWARD P. NADAR ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 3 THEREFORE, WE CONCUR WITH THE STAND OF LD. AR THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6 LACS ONLY. HENC E, WE RESTRICT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS TO RS.6 LACS. THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A) STAND MODIFIED TO THAT EXTENT. 6. RESULTANTLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JANUARY,2018 SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARW AL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 17.01.2018 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT CONCERNED 5. $&- , - , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI