ITO, Ward - 4, Bankura, Bankura V. Pranab Prakash Dutta, Bankura

ITA 1492/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 149223514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APURBA KR DAS L D
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SE; CROSS BJECTOR SSHRI S M SURANA

Judgement Text

, B , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH- B CALCUTTA () BEFORE .., SHRI C.D. RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! /AND '#'$ 1&', ) SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER !( / ITA NO. 1492/KOL/2011 )'# *+/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 I.T.O WARD 4, BANKURA PRANAB PRAKASH DUTTA PAN: AHAPD 1441R (&- / APPELLANT ) - ' - - VERSUS -. (/0&-/ RESPONDENT ) 12 3# / C.O NO.70/KOL/2011 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1492/KOL/2011 A.Y 2007-08] PRANAB PRAKASH DUTTA PAN: AHAPD 1441R I.T.O WARD 4, BANKURA (&- / APPELLANT ) - ' - - VERSUS -. (/0&-/ RESPONDENT ) &- / 145 ) / FOR THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT: / SHRI APURBA KR. DAS, LD.CIT/DR 3# 12$ / /0&- ) / FOR THE CROSS BJECTOR/RESPONDENT: / S/SHRI S.M SURANA & D.K SEN, ADVOCATE, LD.ARS 6'7 8 /DATE OF HEARING : 25-06-2012 9* 8 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25-06-2012 : / ORDER 1 ;<= / PER BENCH THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1492/KOL/2011 IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DURGAPUR IN APPEAL NO. 84/CIT(A)/DGP/2009-10 DATED 12- 08-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND CROSS O BJECTION NO.70/KOL/2011 IS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REVENUES APPEAL NO.1492/K OL/2011. 2. AS BOTH THE REVENUES APPEAL AND .CROSS OBJECT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE INVOLVE IDENTICAL ISSUES, THE SAME ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. SHRI APURBA KR. DAS, LEARNED CIT/DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND S/SHRI S.M SURANA & D.K SEN, ADVOCATE, LEARNED ARS REPRESENTE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED CIT/DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM WEST BENGAL FINANCE CORPORATION FOR THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION, WHI CH HAD NOT DISCLOSED IN HIS BALANCE SHEET. IT W AS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO 1492/KOL/ 11 & CO NO.70/KOL/11-B-GM 2 5. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED ARS FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED A COPY OF BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31-3-2007 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD TERM LOAN IN THE SAID BALANCE SHEET. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDI TION DELETED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF PAGE-2 2 ND PARAGRAPH OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT BEGINS WITH THE WORDS IN HIS BALANCE SHE ET IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN OF R S. 29,50,464.84 FROM WEST BENGAL FINANCE CORPORATION, KOLKATA.. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LOAN AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE A SSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ALSO CATEGORICALLY SHOWS THAT THE LOAN AM OUNT WAS UNDER THE HEAD TERM LOAN. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE FINDING OF T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE IS ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CA LL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THI S ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ABOVE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. C.O NO. 70/KOL/2011 [ITA NO. 1492/KOL/11] A.Y 2007- 08 [BY THE ASSESSEE] 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSE SSEE THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ESTIMATED ADDITION BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICERS COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING NAM ED DHRUVA TARA LODGE AND AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS THE SUBMI SSION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED AND AS LONG AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED IN RESPECT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION, NO ADDITION ON ESTIMATE BASI S CAN BE MADE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THIS VIE W WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS), HOWEVER, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) RETAINED AN ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION AS SUSTAINE D BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE DELETED. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE AS SESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SARGAM TALKIES REPORTED IN 328 ITR 513(SC). 9. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE W AS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION AS SUSTAINED BY THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS REASONABLE AND SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PE RUSAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARGAM TALKIES (REFER TO SUPR A) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IN ABSENCE OF REJECTION OF BO OKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION, NO ADDITION ON ESTIMATE BAS IS ITA NO 1492/KOL/ 11 & CO NO.70/KOL/11-B-GM 3 CAN BE MADE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, A PERUSAL OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE L ODGE, DHRUVA TARA HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN VIEW OF PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARGAM TALKIES (REFER TO SUPRA), NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH AS CO NFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) STANDS DELETED. 11. EVEN ON THE FACTS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE D.V. O HAS ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.. 29,06,032/- AS AGAINST THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION RE CORDED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.26,29,160/-. THE VARIATION IS AMOUNT OF RS. 2,76,863/,- WHICH IS L ESS THAN 10% MARGIN, WHICH COULD NORMALLY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SELF SUPERVISION. I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION AS CONFIRMED BY T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THI S ISSUE STANDS DELETED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. > : 6 < 6' 5 >? THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT AS DICTATED ON DT 25-06-2012 *PP/SPS : 8 /))1 @1*A / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. . &- / THE APPELLANT : ITO, W 4, BANKURA, BILASH BHAVAN, CHAND MARIDANG, PO & DT;BANKURA 2 /0&- / THE RESPONDENT- SHRI PRANAB PRAKASH DUTTA VILL & PO RANIBANDH, DIST: BANKURA 3 4. . ):' / THE CIT, ):' ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5 . 4)5 /)' / DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . 01 /)/ TRUE COPY, :'6/ BY ORDER, > !' /ASSTT REGISTRAR SD/- SD/- ( .., , ) ( C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) ( '#'$ 1&' , ) (GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( (( ( ) )) ) DATE 25- 06-2012