Sibnath Dutta, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1470/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 147023514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GHAYASUDDIN JCIT LD
• Keywords: Salary income; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 1470 /KOL/14 SMC - JSR - SIBNATH DUTTA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC BENCH: KOLKATA BEFORE HON BLE SRI J SUDHAKAR REDDY , A M I.T.A NO . 14 70 /KOL/201 4 A.Y 200 8 - 09 SIBNATH DUTTA V S. I.T.O W ARD 1(1), KOLKATA PAN: A DLPD 0499E ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: NONE APPEARED/ ADJ.REJECTED FOR THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT : MD. GHAYAS UDDIN, JCIT / LD. SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 21 - 08 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 08 - 201 5 ORDER TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - I , KOLKATA DATED 06 - 03 - 2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 . 2. INSPITE OF S ERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.96,349/ - UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE I.T ACT 1961. 4 . BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS INCOME FROM SALARY, BUSINESS & OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION , IT WAS FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS.96,349/ - WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS MINOR DAUGHTER. THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE. ON BEING QUESTION ED REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DE POSITED THE S AME OUT OF HIS PAST ACCUMULATED SAVINGS. ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF HIS CLAIM/SUBMISSION. T HE AO ADDED THE SAME BEING FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES . AGGRIEVED, A SSESSEE PR EFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) , WHO HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NO . 1470 /KOL/14 SMC - JSR - SIBNATH DUTTA 2 5 . NOW , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL ON FACTS. 2. THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED TO CONSIDER THE DEPOSIT AMOUNTING RS.96,349/ - IN A BANK ACCOUNT OF MINOR DAUGHTER AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE CONCERNED BANK AS WELL AS CONSIDERING OF ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT THE MINOR HAS NO KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME OR CANNOT EVEN BE REASONABLY SUSPECTED AS ENGAGED IN ANY INCOME - EARNING ACTIVITIES AND THEREFORE HAS NO SUBSTANTIAL REASON TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED CONSTITUTE INCOME OF MINOR. 3. THAT THE APPELL ANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AND/OR MODIFY ANY GROUND(S) OF THIS APPEAL AT THE TIME OR BEFORE HEARING. 6 . THE LD.DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . 7 . I HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL AVA ILABLE . I N THIS CASE THE LD. AO HAS TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE MINOR DAUGHTER AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUCH SUM HAS BEEN DEPOSITED OUT OF HIS PAST ACCUMULATED SAVINGS , WHICH HAS B EEN REJECTED BY THE LD.AO . IN THIS CASE THE ORDER OF AO IS SILENT ABOUT THE DATE OF DEPOSIT AND WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN ONE GO OR IN PARTS. BESIDES, THE AO DID NOT VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON HIS PAST SAVINGS. SINCE THE AMOUNT INVOLVE D IS QUITE SMALL , C ONSIDERING THE DECLARED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR I.E. RS.3,42,670/ - . I HOLD THAT THE DEPOSIT IS OUT OF HIS PAST ACCUMULATED SAVINGS . A S PER THE ORDER OF THE AO THE AGE OF THE MINOR DAUGHTER WAS 17 YEARS & 6 MONTHS AT THAT TIME . ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE , I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS A PROBABLE EXPLANATION AND HENCE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. 7.1 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCU SSION , I CONSIDER IT FIT TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO A S CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 - 08 - 2015 DATED : 27 - 08 - 2015 [ J SUDH AKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ITA NO . 1470 /KOL/14 SMC - JSR - SIBNATH DUTTA 3 *PP /SR.P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT - SHRI SIBNATH DUTTA 2/3 ELGIN ROAD, BHOWANIPORE, KOL - 20. 2 RESPONDENT : I T O W 1(1) , P - 7 CHOWRINGHEE SQ, KOL - 69. 3 . THE CIT, 4 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER A SSTT. REGISTRAR