Ranajit Bhakat, Burdwan V. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Burdwan, Burdwan

ITA 1456/KOL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2652 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2008
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: K P GHOSH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69C; 69

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C BENCH : KOLKATA (BEFORE HONBLE SRI D.K.TYAGI, J.M. AND HONBLE S RI B.C.MEENA, A.M.) I .T.A. NO. 1456/KOL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 RANAJIT BHAKAT VS. ITO, WARD -1(1), BURDWAN (PAN NO AGGPB 5761 K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SR I K.P.GHOSH. RESPONDENT BY : SRI K.K.TRIPATHI. O R D E R PER SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A), ASANSOL, DATED 31.03.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED ARE AS UNDER : 1. FOR THAT THE LD. ITO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) , ASANSOL, HAVE ERRED BOTH IN POINTS OF LAW AND IN FACTS WHILE PAS SING THEIR ORDERS FOR THE YEAR IN DISPUTE. 2. FOR THAT LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) IS NOT JUS TIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. ITO HOLDING THAT THE SUM OF RS.70,663/- (ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL) WAS ASSESSABLE AS INCOM E FROM UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) WAS WRONG IN MAKING THE ORDER UNDER THE HEAD ADDITION OF RS.6,000/- ON A CCOUNT OF LOAN U/S 69C INSTEAD OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY LD. ITO O N ACCOUNT OF RENT. 4. FOR THAT ON THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGH T TO ADDUCE ANY FURTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS, IF NECESSARY AT OR BE FORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THE LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS IGNORED THE FACT THA T INITIAL CAPITAL WAS CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, THIS ADDITION OF RS.70,663 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/ S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX 2 ACT WAS UNJUSTIFIED. HE PLEADED THAT THE CIT(A) H AS NOT CONSIDERED THE CARRY FORWARD OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY, HE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RENT OF RS.6000. THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECT ED RS.6000 FROM SHRI KAMALI PRASAD BHAGAT , PROPRIETOR BINOY KUMAR BHAG AT, HATTALA, BOLPUR AND THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THE LOAN U/S 69C WHICH IS ALSO COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED AND HE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR DECIDING AFRESH AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS , THE LEARNED D.R. WAS ALSO NOT HAVING SERIOUS OBJECTION ON T HIS PROPOSITION. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERING AL L THE FACTS OF THE CASE ,WE FIND THAT THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SIMILARLY, TH E RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE A.O. AS AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT IT IS A LOAN U/S 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS T HE FACTS ARE NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD. THE ISSUES REQUIRE RECONSIDERATI ON AT THE LEVEL OF THE A.O. AFTER PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE AND ALSO TO APPRISE THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THIS MAT TER, WE RESTORE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE DE NOVO. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.04.2010 SD/- SD/- (D.K.TYAGI) (B.C.MEENA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 09.04.2010 3 COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1) ITO, WARD 1(1), BURDWAN. 2) RANAJIT BHAKAT, VIVEKANANDA COLLEGE MORE, 62, SA DARGHAT ROAD, P.O. SRIPALLY, DIST. BURDWAN. 3) CIT(A), ASANSOL. 4) CIT, ASANSOL 5) D.R., ITAT, KOLKATA. (TRUE COPY) BY OR DER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR BCD I.T.AT., KOLKATA.