ACIT, Circle-30,Kolkata, Kolkata V. Supriti Das Gupta, Kolkata

ITA 1607/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1558 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MONDAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1607/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1607/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. ......................APPELLANT CIRCLE-30, KOLKATA, 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH), KOLKATA-700 068 -VS.- SUPRITI DAS GUPTA,................................. ...............................RESPONDENT 18/64, DOVER LANE, KOLKATA-700 029 [PAN: ACYPD 1437 E] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI P.K. MONDAL, ADDL. CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTME NT SHRI AKKAL DUDHEWALA, FCA, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 19, 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 23, 2018 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, KOLKATA D ATED 10.03.2014. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION O N 31.10.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,32,173/-. FROM THE B ALANCE-SHEETS FILED ALONG WITH THE SAID RETURN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF TWO FLATS. HE ACCORDINGLY REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ONE FLAT OF THE VALUE OF RS. 1,27,900/- AS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FUR NISH THE SAID DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OF FICER TOOK THE NET ANNUAL VALUE OF THE SAID FLAT AT RS.2,40,000/- AND AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION @ 30%, THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY HIM IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . 2 ITA NO. 1607/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 3. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HI S TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS CHA LLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED T HE SAID ADDITION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 3.2 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 3.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION P UT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTING DETAILS/DOCUMENTS FURNISHED, PERUSED THE FACTS OF T HE CASE, INCLUDING THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. I FIND JUSTIFICATION IN THE ARG UMENTS PUT FORWARD ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN HIS ORDER, INCLUDING DETAILS OF FLAT (B/F) OF RS.1,27,900/- WH ICH, IN FACT, IS TOWARDS REGISTRATION CHARGES, PURCHASED DEED OF THE FLAT, WHICH ALSO DETAILS THE LOCATION AND WHETHER THE PRO PERTY IS LET OUT AND AMOUNT RECEIVED AS RENT, ARE SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED BY THE APPELLANT, WITH SUPPORTING, IN HER SUBMISSIO N. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION OF NET ANNUAL VALUE OF RS.20,000/- PER MONTH, IS MADE ARBITRARILY AND ON E STIMATE BASIS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE HOUSE PR OPERTY, AND IS, IN ITSELF, A FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION. ON GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AL ONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FURNISHED, ARGUMENTS PUT FORWA RD AND PERUSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE OBSER VATIONS AND CONCLUSION OF THE A.O. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT O RDER, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT THE A.O. WAS IN UNDUE HASTE TO COMPLETE THE CASE AND WA S UNREASONABLE IN CONSIDERING ONE AND THE SAME PROPER TY AS MORE THAN ONE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AN D ALSO TO IMAGINE THE NET ANNUAL VALUE OF RS 20,000/- PER MON TH FOR THE SELF OCCUPIED HOUSE PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT WHERE THE NET ANNUAL VALUE IS 'NIL'. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FO LLOWING GROUND :- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING NEW DOCUMENTS FROM THE ASSES SEE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE AND NOT GIVING AN OPPORTUNIT Y TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE DOCUMENTS, IN VIOLA TION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULE. 3 ITA NO. 1607/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 5. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BY RAISING A SPECIFIC GROUND THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF TH E INCOME TAX RULES BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), INASMUCH AS HE ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE NEW DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIV ING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME. IN THI S REGARD, THE LD. D.R. HAS INVITED MY ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO POINT OUT THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF A COPY OF PURCHASE DEED OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND RECEIPT OF THE BANGALORE REGISTRATION OFFICE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE SAME WAS RELIED UPON BY TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME. HOWEVE R, AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH TH E SAID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TI ME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT( APPEALS) MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF TWO BALANCE-SHEETS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A LONG WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME. HE HAS INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE COPIES O F THE SAID TWO BALANCE- SHEETS, ONE BELONGING TO THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER OF THE ASSESSEE AS INDIVIDUAL, TO POINT OUT T HAT THE VALUE OF FLAT AT BANGALORE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE TH E REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS.1,27,900/- PAID ON THE SAID BANGALORE FLAT WE RE DULY AND SEPARATELY SHOWN IN THE INDIVIDUAL BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESS EE. A PERUSAL OF THE SAID TWO BALANCE-SHEETS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THUS CLEARL Y SHOWS THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE FLAT AT BANGALORE, WHICH WAS CO-OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GOING BY THE CLEAR DESCRIPTION GIVEN IN HIS INDIVID UAL BALANCE-SHEET, THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,27,900/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FO R REGISTRATION CHARGES FOR THE SAID BANGALORE FLAT. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), 4 ITA NO. 1607/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SECOND FLAT OF THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS TOTALLY ARBITR ARY AND WITHOUT ANY BASE AND EVEN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER BY ADOPTING THE ANNUAL VALUE WAS TOTALLY UNREASONABLE. IN MY OPINIO N, THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISS UE THUS WAS BASED ON THE BALANCE-SHEETS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF AND THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE RE VENUE THAT THERE WAS ANY VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES BY TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS). I, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE UNDER CO NSIDERATION AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, I DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018 COPIES TO : (1) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-30, KOLKATA, 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH), KOLKATA-700 068 2) SHRI SUPRITI DAS GUPTA, 18/64, DOVER LANE, KOLKATA-700 029 (3) CIT(APPEALS)-XIV, KOLKATA, (4) CIT- , KOLKATA, (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.