Sri Jayanta Chanda, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 24(3), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 13/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9267 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: B N SARKAR
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

1 , SMC , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH- SMC , KOLKATA [ . .. . . .. . , , , , ] BEFORE SHRI C.D. RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / ITA NO. 13 (KOL) OF 2010 !' #$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 SHRI JAYANTA CHANDA , KOLKATA. (PAN-ACSPC5944R) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-24(3), KOLKATA.. ('( / APPELLANT ) - ! - - VERSUS -. (+,'(/ RESPONDENT ) '( - . / FOR THE APPELLANT: / SRI B.N. SARKAR +,'( - . / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SRI K.K.TRIPATHI / / ORDER ( . .. . . .. . ), (C.D. RAO), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 04.09.2009 OF LD. C.I.T.(A)-XIX, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS WHICH ARE ALL DIRECTED AGAINST CONF IRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS BY THE LD. C.I.T.(A), BEING THE ASSESSEES CONCEALED I NCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.2 LAKHS IN F RANKLIN MUTUAL FUND STANDING IN THE JOINT NAMES OF MRS. RUMA CHANDA, ASSESSEES WIFE AS FIRST HOLDER AND THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AS SECOND HOLDER. THE ASSESSEE DENIED TO H AVE MADE ANY SUCH INVESTMENT BY HIM. HE STATED THAT HER WIFE WAS EMPLOYED IN SINGA PORE, WHERE SHE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AND THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY HER OUT OF HER OWN SOURCES GENERATED FROM SALARY INCOME IN SINGAPORE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED TH AT HIS WIFE TRANSFERRED RS.2 LAKHS FROM SINGAPORE TO HER BANK ACCOUNT WITH HSBC AT KOL KATA, WHICH WAS IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH HSBC, KOLKATA FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/4/2004 TO 01/1/2005 WERE ALSO SUBMIT TED TO THE A.O. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT ON THE APPLICATION FOR INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FU ND, PAN OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT HIS WIFE WAS MENTIONED. THE A.O., HOWEVER, HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE WITH 2 SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAID MUTUAL FUND ON 02/3/2005 WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY HIS WIFE. HE, THERE FORE, TREATED THE SAID INVESTMENT OF RS. 2 LAKHS AS ASSESSEES CONCEALED INCOME OUT OF U NDISCLOSED SOURCES AND THUS ADDED THE SAME TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. C.I.T.(A), THE ASSESSE E REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE A.O. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HIS WIFE HAD PURCHASED TWO DRAFTS FROM BANK OF INDIA, SINGAPORE ON 13/4/1998 AND DEPOSITED THE SAM E IN HSBC BANK, KOLKATA. THE RELEVANT REMITTANCES WERE OUT OF HER OWN SOURCE GEN ERATED FROM SALARY INCOME AT SINGAPORE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID S UM WAS EARLIER INVESTED IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND ON ENCASHMENT, THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED T O JOINT BANK ACCOUNT WITH CITI BANK, CHANDIGARH. THE INVESTMENT OF RS.2 LAKHS IN F RANKLIN TEMPLETON MUTUAL FUND WAS OUT THE SAID JOINT BANK ACCOUNT WITH CITI BANK, CHANDIGARH. IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF PASSPORT, EMPLOYMENT LETTER ISSUED AT SINGAPORE, TRANSFER OF FUND FROM SINGAPORE TO INDIA AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO MRS. RUMA CHANDAS TAXATION ISSUED AT SINGAPORE. THE LD. C.I.T.(A), HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY HIS WIFE AND NOT BY HE HIMSELF AND HE THUS UPHELD THE A DDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS MADE BY THE A.O. BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- (6) . IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBM ITTED THE STATEMENT UPTO 31- 03-1999 ONLY. THE SAID BANK STATEMENT DOES NOT PROV E THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.2,00,000/- AS ON 02-03-2005 IN THE MUTUAL FUND. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.2,00,000/- WAS MADE FROM HIS WIFES JOINT A/C IN CITI BANK CHANDIGARH. HOWEVER, THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF CITI BANK WAS NEITHER FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE ME. IF THE CHEQU E OF RS.2,00,000/- FOR INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND WAS ISSUED FROM CITI BANK , CHANDIGARH, THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE SAID BANK STATEMENT TO PROVE THE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT. BUT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DO SO. ON THE MUTUAL FUND APPLICATIONS THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN HIS OWN P AN AND HENCE EVEN IF THE INVESTMENT WAS IN JOINT NAME, THE APPELLANT IS REQU IRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION ABOUT SOURCE OF INVESTMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT PRODUCING COMPLETE BANK STATEMENTS AND BY SIMPLY PRODUCING CERTAIN EVIDENCES THAT HIS WIFE MRS. RUMA CHANDRA H AD REMITTED RS.2,00,000/- FROM SINGAPORE IN THE YEAR 1998. THE ONUS IS ON THE APPE LLANT AND NOT ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS MADE O N 02-03-2005 WAS OUT OF THE FUNDS OF 1998. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO CORRELATE THE FUNDS OF 1998 AND INVESTMENT MADE IN 2005. THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED EVIDENCES IN PIECE MEAL ONLY. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT COMPLETE DOCUMENTARY 3 EVIDENCES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I AM NOT INCLINED TO I NTERFERE WITH THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AO. THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHIS CONFIRMED . HENCE THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE ME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A PAPER BOOK OF 45 PAGES CONTAINING THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE EARLIER FILED BEFORE THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A), IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HIMSELF HAS STATED THAT THE SUM OF RS. 2 LAKHS WAS EARLIER INVESTED IN MUTUAL FUNDS AN D ON ENCASHMENT, THE SUM WAS TRANSFERRED TO JOINT BANK ACCOUNT WITH CITI BANK, C HANDIGARH. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT PURCHASE OF FRANKLIN TEMPLETON MUTUAL FUND WAS OUT OF THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SAID CITI BANK, CHANDIGARH. IT IS OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRODUCED THE BANK STATEMENT OF CITI BANK BEFORE THE A.O. NOR BEFORE THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AND IN ABSENCE OF WHICH, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DOUBTED THE INVESTMENT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE. THE SAID BANK STATEME NT WAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE FOR A FFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM. I, THEREFORE, RESTORE THE MATT ER TO THE FILE OF A.O. TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE WITH A DIRECTION TO ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE COPY OF STATEMENT OF CITI BANK, CHANDIGARH AND ANY FURTHER DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND WAS OUT OF HER WIFES OWN SOURCE OF INCOME. THE A.O. SHALL RE ADJUDICATE THE MATTER AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES WHICH MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DE EMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 0 / 1 2 1! 3 04 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10.3.2011 . SD/- ( . .. . . .. . ) (C.D.RAO) , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( ( ) )) ) DATE: 10-03-2011 4 / ITA NO. 13 (KOL) OF 2010 / - + 5 65#7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '( / THE APPELLANT : SRI JAYANTA CHANDA, 3-G, MOORE AVENUE, REGENT PARK, KOLKATA-700 0 40. 2 +,'( / THE RESPONDENT : I.T.O., WARD-24(3), KOLKATA. 3. /! () : THE CIT(A) - XIX, KOLKATA. 4. /!/ THE CIT, KOL- 5 . ; 3 + ! / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 6 . GUARD FILE . ,5 + / TRUE COPY, /!1/ BY ORDER, (DKP) < = / DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR .