Sri R. Nagaraj, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 15/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5347 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GURUSWAMY ITP

Judgement Text

ITA.15 & 16/BANG/2010 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI. GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. I.T.A NO.15/BANG/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) 2. I.T.A NO.16/BANG/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) 1. SHRI. R. NAGARAJ, 2. SMT. SHANTHA NAGARAJ, NO.48, 2ND 'B' CROSS, OPP. ITI COLONY, KATHRIGUPPA, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE 560 085 .. APPELLANT V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -4(1), BANGALORE .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI. GURUSWAMY, ITP RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JACINTA ZINIK VASHAI, ADD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX O R D E R PER DR. O. K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT : THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSES WHO AR E HUSBAND AND WIFE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006-07. TH ESE COUPLE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-II AT ITA.15 & 16/BANG/2010 PAGE - 2 BANGALORE, DATED 16.10.2009. BOTH THE APPEALS ARIS E OUT OF THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 196 1. 2. THE HUSBAND SHRI. R. NAGARAJ IS A CIVIL CONTRACT OR AND THE WIFE SMT. SHANTHA IS AN INTERIOR DESIGNER. THE HUSBAND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,74,950/-. THE WIF E FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,48,250/-. IN THE CASE OF HUSBAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS .4,07,802/-, AFTER MAKING TWO ADDITIONS OF RS.1,05,352/- AND RS.1,27,5 00/-. THE ADDITION OF RS.1,05,352/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,16,900/-. INCOME AT 8% THEREOF WAS ADDED. THE ADDITION OF RS .1,27,500/- WAS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE BREAK-UP AND PROOF OF BILL PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,27,500/- W HICH IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN FIRST APPEAL THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A ) PARTIALLY ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND GRANTE D RELIEFS. BUT HE HAS NOT SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,05,341/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW COME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA.15 & 16/BANG/2010 PAGE - 3 4. ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE DETAILED IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE ALLEGATION OF S UPPRESSION IN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE A MISTAKE OF A CCOUNTING ENTRIES AS REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT STATEMENT. APART FROM THIS MISTAKE REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS PREPARE D BY THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSING AUTHORITY DOES NOT HAVE ANY SOURCE TO PRO VE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT RECEIVED MORE AMOUNTS THAN DISCLOSED IN THE ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON GR OUND OF STRONG SUSPICION AND NOT ON THE GROUND OF ANY PIECE OF EVI DENCE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY GROUND TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.1,05,232/- WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 5. IN THE CASE OF SHANTA NAGARAJ, THE ASSESSING AUT HORITY DETERMINED A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.12,42,250/- AFTER MAKING TWO ADD ITIONS OF RS.4 LAKHS AND RS.7,15,000/- RESPECTIVELY. THE FIRST ADDITION WAS MADE TOWARDS SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THE SECOND ADDITION WA S MADE TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. 6. THE FIRST APPEAL WAS PARTLY SUCCESSFUL. AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.4 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME- TAX(A) GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.2,50,000/- ON THE GROUN D THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BAL ANCE OF RS.1,50,000/- ITA.15 & 16/BANG/2010 PAGE - 4 HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X(A) ON THE GROUND THAT IT REPRESENTED THE PROVISIONAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES TO ARRIVE AT SUCH A CONCLUSION. THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS PR OVISIONAL RECEIPTS BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ONLY ON THE GROUND OF PRESUMP TIONS AND SURMISES. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/-. 7. IN RESULT, THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDEN T MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, NEW DELHI 7. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASST.REGISTRAR