Shri Harish Kumar Manikant Goda, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 31(3), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1400/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 140023514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 1400/KOL./20 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-200 8 PAGE 1 TO 4 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA CORAM : SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.: 1400/KOL./ 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-2008 SHRI HARISH KUMAR MANIKANT GODA,................... .......APPELLANT 29B, ALLENBY ROAD, KOLKATA-700 020 [PAN : ADXPG 6676 J] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ .............................RESPONDENT WARD-31(3), KOLKATA, 10B, MIDDLETON ROW, KOLKATA-700 071 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI P.B. PRAMANICK, JCIT, SR. D.R, FOR THE DEPARTM ENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 14, 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 19, 2014 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEROGE : 1. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE ASSAILS AN ADDITION OF RS.3,62,100/- WHICH WAS SCALED DOWN BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS)-XIX, KOLKATA TO RS.2,68,150/-. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL , HAD FILED HIS RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME O F RS.1,69,635/-. IT SEEMS THAT RETURN WAS ORIGINALLY SUBJECT ONLY TO A PROCESSING UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPE NED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. REASON FOR REOPENING IS NOT AVAILAB LE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON CERTAIN DOCUMENTS CAME TO A FINDING THAT J EWELLERY WORTH RS.5.5 LAKHS WAS HANDED OVER BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE IN-LAW S OF HIS DAUGHTER. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, SAID JEWELLERY WAS NOT SHOWN IN ASSESSEES BALANCE- I.T.A. NO.: 1400/KOL./20 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-200 8 PAGE 1 TO 4 2 SHEET. NO RETURN OF WEALTH WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE MAXIMUM GOLD JEWELLERY THAT CAN BE POSSESSED BY A MARRIED MAN, WHO HAS NOT FILED ANY WEALTH-TAX RETUR N, CAN BE ONLY 200 GRAMS. TAKING PER GRAM RATE OF RS.939.5, ASSESSING OFFICER REACHED A FIGURE OF RS.1,87,900/-, AS THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF GO LD JEWELLERY THAT CAN BE POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,62,100/- WAS ADDED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. 3. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ONLY 400 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY WAS HANDED OVER TO THE IN-LAWS OF HIS DAUGHTER AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AND ON VARIOUS OCC ASIONS. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SUCH JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED OVER A LARGE NUMBER OF YEARS OUT OF SAVINGS. ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE W ERE REGULAR WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HIM FROM HIS ACCOUNTS AND, THER EFORE, SURPLUS MONEY WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM FOR PURCHASING SMALL Q UANTITIES OF GOLD ORNAMENTS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. AS PER THE AS SESSEE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT BY HIM FOR THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTE R WAS RS.12.32 LAKHS AND THE JEWELLERY GIVEN TO THE IN-LAWS OF HIS DAUGH TER WAS ONLY 400 GRAMS. 4. LD. CIT(APPEALS) PARTLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF AS SESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OVER A N UMBER OF YEARS FROM HIS ACCOUNTS AND, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM THAT SOME OF JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED IN THE EARLIER YEARS OUT OF SAVINGS, COUL D NOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF 300 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY COULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, HE LD THAT AT THE RATE OF RS.939.5 PER GRAM THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF JEWELLERY TH AT COULD BE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS.2,81,850/-. HE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS.2,68,150/-. 5. NOW BEFORE US, LD. A.R. STRONGLY ASSAILING THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT 400 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY WAS NOT A HUGE I.T.A. NO.: 1400/KOL./20 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-200 8 PAGE 1 TO 4 3 HOLDING AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH WAS NOT ACHIEVABLE FOR A COMMON MAN. ACCORDING TO HIM, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS BASED ON COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE SON-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS TRYING FO R A DIVORCE FROM ASSESSEES DAUGHTER. AS PER LD. A.R. WHEN WITHDRAWA LS WERE FOUND SUFFICIENT FOR MORE THAN 400 GRAMS, LD. CIT(APPEALS ) ERRED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE COULD AT THE BEST HOLD ONL Y 300 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT DISPU TED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS HAVING DRAWINGS FROM HIS ACCOU NTS IN THE EARLIER YEARS. ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ONLY 400 GRAM S OF JEWELLERY, WHICH WAS GIVEN BY HIM TO THE IN-LAWS OF HIS DAUGHTER AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. ASSESSEE WHO WAS REGULARLY FILING RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMED THAT HE HAD ACQUIRED SUCH JEWELLERY OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. SIN CE HE WAS HAVING A DAUGHTER TO MARRY OFF, THIS IS NOT AN UNBELIEVABLE VERSION. ENDEAVOUR OF EVERY INDIAN IS TO ACCUMULATE SOME JEWELLERY WHICH CAN BE USED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF HIS/HER DAUGHTER. AT THE BEST, ASSESSEE CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS A DOTING FATHER. IT IS NOT REQUIRED F OR AN ASSESSEE TO FILE PERSONAL BALANCE-SHEET ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INC OME. HENCE, THE QUESTION OF JEWELLERY NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE- SHEET, IN OUR OPINION, IS IRRELEVANT. THE REOPENING, AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT , IN OUR OPINION, WAS AN AFTERMATH OF FAMILY DISPUTES BETWEEN THE DAUGHTER O F THE ASSESESE AND HER HUSBAND. THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME OR UNACCOUNTED INCOME COULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED. THE ADDITION MADE IS DELETED IN FULL. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- GEORGE MATHAN ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 19 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014 I.T.A. NO.: 1400/KOL./20 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-200 8 PAGE 1 TO 4 4 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI HARISH KUMAR MANIKANT GODA, 29B, ALLENBY ROAD, KOLKATA-700 020 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(3), KOLKATA, 10B, MIDDLETON ROW, KOLKATA-700 071 (3) CIT(APPEALS) (4) CIT (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.