Mrs. Pushpa D. Patil, Satara V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1581/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9252 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.1581 TO 1586/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999-2000 TO 2004-05 MRS. PUSHPA DAULATRAO PATIL, PRIT PRATIK AYODHYA NAGARI, DHEBIWADI ROAD, AGASHIVNAGAR, KARAD, DIST. SATARA. PAN : ACLPP4779Q. . / APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SATARA. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE. REVENUE BY : SHRI MUKESH JHA, JCIT. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THESE SIX APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE EMANATING OU T OF SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) - 2, PUNE DT.07.03.2016 FOR A.YS 1999-2000 TO 2004-05. 2. BEFORE US, THE LD.D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE SIX APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - 2, PUNE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR S BUT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE IDENTICAL EX CEPT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE AMOUNTS IN EACH OF THE Y EARS. WE THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE PROCEED TO DISPOS E OF ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER, BUT HO WEVER, / DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.02.2018 2 PROCEED WITH NARRATING THE FACTS IN ITA NO.1581/PUN/201 6 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE HAVING RENTAL INC OME FROM S.T.D. BOOTH AND OTHER SOURCES. IN THIS CASE, PROCE EDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AND A NOTICE U/S 148 OF TH E ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 29.03.2006. THE REASON FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AS NOTED BY THE AO ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED RETURN FOR A.Y. 1999-2000. INFORMA TION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ADIT (INV), KOLHAPUR, WHEREIN ASSESSEES H USBAND, SHRI DAULAT PATIL, HAD ACCEPTED THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS .1,60,000/- WAS MADE OUT OF HIS WIFES UNEXPLAINED INCOME FOR A.Y. 1999- 2000. HE ACCEPTED TO PAY THE TAX ON THE ABOVE INCOME OF HIS WIFE. SINCE NO RETURN WAS FILED FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, AO HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX OF RS.1,60 ,000/- HAD ESCAPED FROM ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 1999-2000. AO NOTED TH AT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED TH E RETURN OF INCOME ON 14.08.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,33,833/- A ND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.23,000/-. AO HAS NOTED THAT ASSE SSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 AND PRIOR TO THAT SINCE A.Y. 1992-93 TILL A.Y. 2002-03 ALSO ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. AO HAS NOTED THAT NON-FILING OF RETURNS BY THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM 1992-93 TILL A.Y. 2004-05 CROPPED UP D UE TO TAX EVASION PETITION RECEIVED BY THE INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT , KOLHAPUR AND AN ENQUIRY THEREIN WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ADIT (INV ), KOLHAPUR. IN THE REPORT DT.06.03.2006 WHILE PREPARING THE ANNEXURE FOR DETERMINATION OF ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT / UNAC COUNTED 3 INCOME, THE ADIT (INV), KOLHAPUR HAS NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE TOTAL INVESTMENT WAS DETERMINED AT RS.76,13,790/-, THE INVESTME NT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.68,34,747/- PERTAINED TO PERIOD FROM A.Y. 1998-99 TO 2003-04 (BLOCK PERIOD). IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE INV ESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.17,67,470/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TAKING LOAN FROM KARAD URBAN BANK AND OTHER BANKS AND ACCORDINGL Y, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.50,67,177/- WAS TREATED AS ASSESSEE S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT / UNACCOUNTED INCOME WHICH WAS ALS O ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI DAULAT PATIL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE ADIT (INV), KOLHAPUR, ASSESSEE FILED BALANCE SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH WAS LATER ON REVISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF BALANCE-SHEET AND OTHER DET AILS, AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 AT RS.50,67,177/- AS AGAINST THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR RS.1,33,833/-. SIMILARLY, FOR THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED BY THE AO AS UNDER : ASSESSMENT YEAR INCOME AS PER RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2000-01 1,33,833/- 4,36,520/- 2001-02 1,35,336/- 7,29,050/- 2002-03 58,884/- 18,27,880/- 2003-04 1,16,856/- 14,42,260/- 2004-05 47,730/- 19,04,490/- AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEA RS, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A). ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED BY LD.CIT(A) BY ORDER DT.06.10.200 8 FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPEALS WERE NOT MAINTAINABLE, BEING OUT OF TIME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER 4 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DT.30.01.2009 SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), WITH DIRECTIONS TO CONDONE THE DE LAY AND DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF ITAT, ORDER WAS PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DT.07.03.2016 FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 WHEREIN PARTIAL RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US, AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1) THAT THE LEARNED ITO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING THE TA X AND INTEREST THEREON OF RS.4,07,728/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR A.Y.1999-2000 IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 2) AMOUNT OF RS 12,500/- ADDED TO INCOME WHICH IS BELONG TO THE DB PATIL HUF. 3) AMOUNT OF 1,50,000/- UNSECURED LOAN GIVEN TO N K PATIL ADDED TO INCOME. LETTER OF CONFIRMING FACT FROM NK PATIL IS SUBMITTED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 4) INCREASE IN CAPITAL BALANCE AMOUNTING RS 20,734/ - HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF RESIDUE LEFT FROM THE INCOME EARNED 'AN D ALSO LOAN TAKEN FROM THE BANK FROM WHICH CASH WITHDRAWAL WERE MADE. 5) LOAN TAKEN FROM LAXMI PAWAR FOR THAT UNREGISTERE D AGREEMENT TO SALE (VISAR PAWATI) AND CONFIRMATION L ETTER IS GIVEN TO ASSESSING OFFICER. 6) UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN BANK IS FROM THE ENCASHMEN T OF FIXED DEPOSIT. FOR THE CONFIRMATION XEROX COPY OF FDR STA TEMENT AND BANK STATEMENT CORROBORATING THE ABOVE SAID FACT IS GIVEN TO ASSESSING OFFICER. 7) LAW DRAWING ARE ADDED TO INCOME BECAUSE OF NO WI THDRAWAL FROM BANK. ALL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO FAMILY INCURR ED BY MR. DAULAT PATIL. 8) LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE HUGE ADDITION TO INCOME OF RS. 4,03,762/- LEVIED ON THE INCOME BY THE ITO MAY PLEASE BE WAIVED. 4. SIMILAR GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A.YS. 2000-01 TO 2004-05. 5. THE CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEA RING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 07.09.2016 BUT NO ONE APPEARED NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MA TTER WAS 5 THEREFORE ADJOURNED TO 10.10.2016. ON 10.10.2016 ALSO NO NE APPEARED AND THEREFORE THE MATTER WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 10.11.2016 AND THEREAFTER TO 25.05.2017. IT IS SEEN THAT ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS, THERE WAS NEITHER ANY REPRESENTATION O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. I T WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE HEREIN THAT THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND AT THE INST ANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE REVENUE. 6. BEFORE US, LD.D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD.CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN T HE SECOND ROUND HAD CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM AO. THE COP Y OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS FORWARDED TO ASSESSEE SEEKING HER COMMENTS BUT THERE WAS NO REPLY FROM THE ASSESSEE OR ANY SUBMISSIO NS TO COUNTER THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT. LD.CIT(A) THEREAFTER DECIDED THE ISSUE FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 5 .5. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.1,5 0,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000/- WAS SHOWN TO BE RECEIVED AS CASH LOAN FROM SMT. LAXMI PAWAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WE LL AS CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR, WHICH COULD NOT B E DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY HIM. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING TOO THE APPELLANT FAILED T O FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTION AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HER ONUS WITH REGARD TO CASH CR EDIT, THEREFORE I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,50 ,000/-. THE ADDITION IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 5.6. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCO ME OF RS.18,400/- TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. T HE APPELLANT DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.23,00 0/- WHICH WAS REDUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RS.4,600/- AND THE 6 BALANCE OF RS.18,400/- WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE APPELLANT O WNS 36R OF LAND, THE INCOME SHOWN OF RS.23,000/- IS FOUND TO B E REASONABLE, AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE IS DEL ETED. 5.7. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.46 ,528/- BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FDRS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF THESE FDS AND THE REFORE THE ADDITION WAS MADE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE ANY FURTHER EVI DENCE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE FDR S. I ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PER FECTLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.40,528/- AS UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT IN FDS. HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFI RMED. 5.8. THE LAST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF LOW DRAWING OF RS.30,000/-. IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER MADE ANY WITHDRAWAL FOR HERSELF AND FAMILY MEMBERS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ENTIRE F AMILY EXPENDITURE WAS MADE BY SHRI D. B. PATIL, HER HUSBA ND. THIS CONTENTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- (I.E.2,5 00 PER MONTH). THE APPELLANT REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT HAS A FAMILY OF FO UR MEMBERS. I FIND THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY REASON FOR NOT SHOW ING ANY WITHDRAWAL JUST BECAUSE IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE EXPE NDITURE IS MADE BY HER HUSBAND AND THAT ALSO WITHOUT ANY SUPPO RTING. HOWEVER I FEEL THAT AMOUNT OF RS.2,000/- PER MONTH WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO MEET HER PERSONAL EXPENDITURE AND THE REFORE, ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS.24,000/-.THE APPELLANT THUS GETS RELIEF OF RS.6,000/-. 8. SIMILARLY, FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LD.CIT(A) WHEREIN HE GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO AS SESSEE. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND HAS ALSO GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, ASSESSEE HAS N OT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A). IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER O F LD.CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1581/PUN/2016 IS DISMISSED. 10. AS FAR AS THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEALS IN ITA NO.1582/PUN/2016 TO ITA NO.1586/PUN/2016 FOR A.YS. 2000 -01 TO 2004-05 ARE CONCERNED, SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ALL THESE YEARS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE OF THE CASE IN ITA 7 NO.1581/PUN/2016 FOR A.Y. 1999-2000, WE THEREFORE FOR THE REASO NS STATED HEREIN WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1581/PUN/2016 FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 AND FOR SIMILAR REASO NS, DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ALL OTHER ASS ESSMENT YEARS. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.1582/PUN/2016 TO ITA NO.1586/PUN/2016 ARE DISMI SSED. 12. TO SUM UP, ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. YAMINI #$%&'(' % / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT (A)-2, PUNE. 4. PR.CIT -1, PUNE. 5. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; 6. $,-./ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // /01%2&3 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE