Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore V. Sri. Jacob Methew, Bangalore

ITA 1518/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0425 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH C BEFORE SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1518/BANG/2 015 (ASST. YEAR 2009-10) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE. . APPELLANT VS. SHRI JACOB METHEW, S_1 PROMENADE # 76, NANDIDURGA ROAD, BANGALORE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWALA, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NONE DATE OF HEARING : 27-04-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-04-2016 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 5, BANGALOR E DATED 10/9/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.1518/B/15 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (1) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-5, BANGALORE, IS OPPOSED TO THE LAW AND NOT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (2) WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN GRANTING RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 SINCE THE SOU RCE OF INVESTMENT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED IN APPELLATE ORDER. (3) FOR THIS AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED UPON, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT ASSESS MENT ORDER BE RESTORED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RESPOND ENT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HE DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS FILED ON 24/3/2 010 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,53,75,400/- THE SAID RETURN OF INCO ME AFTER PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUING STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) VIDE OR DER DATED 30/12/2011 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,04,27,842/-. THE DISPARITY BETWEEN RETURNED INCOME AND ASSESSED INCOME IS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF RS.45,08,400/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLE GED INVESTMENT IN ITA NO.1518/B/15 3 THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, AS PER THE INFORMATION R ECEIVED FROM AIR, IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE HAD FAI LED TO FURNISH THE SOURCE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SAID IMMOVABLE P ROPERTY. AN AMOUNT OF RS.42,842/- WAS ALSO FIXED AS INTEREST FROM THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT. 4. THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED, FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT AT BANDARA MANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE BANGALORE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,00,51,000/- INCLUDING THE DE VELOPMENT CHARGES ETC. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON 29/08/2008 T HE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 20,46,000/-. THE G UIDE LINE VALUE AS PER THE DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND STAMP IS RS. 49,08,600/-. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ADDITI ON CANNOT BE MADE SOLELY BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AIR. IN RESPECT OF THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITA T IN THE CASE OF G SELVAKUMAR. BASED ON THAT THE CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DELETED THE ADDITION VIDE PARA 7 OF THE ORDER WHICH READS A S UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITA NO.1518/B/15 4 PASSED BY THE AO AND ALSO THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITT ED. THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS HAS FURNISHED THE COPY OF ABSOLUTE SALE DEED AGREEM ENT FOR SALE AND DEVELOPMENT ENTERED WITH RENAISSANCE HOLDI NGS AND DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. AFTER VERIFYING THE SAME IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND, THEREF ORE, THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED . 6. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US WITH THE PRE SENT APPEAL. SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A), IT IS NOT CLEAR ON WHAT BASIS CIT(A) GRANTED RELIE F. ADDITION WAS MADE ON FAILURE TO FURNISH THE SOURCE IN SUPPORT O F ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. NOTHING IS VISIBLE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AS TO ANY EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSE E IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCE FOR ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. HENCE , THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 8. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESS EE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. 9. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED SR. DR WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) IT IS NOT CLEAR ITA NO.1518/B/15 5 ON WHAT BASIS THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF. THE CIT(A) HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED, AGREEMENT OF SALE THROUGH WHICH PROPERTY WAS BOUGHT. BUT THE MOOT Q UESTION IS THE ADDITION WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE AS SESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. THE CIT(A) HAD NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE. THEREFORE, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET, IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DENOVO ASSESSMEN T AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APR, 2016 . SD/- SD/- (VIJAYPAL RAO) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED : 29/04/2016 VMS COPY TO :1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REG ISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.