ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI V. VASUDEO SALIN, MUMBAI

ITA 1626/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8965 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUM EET KUMAR
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI R.V.EASWAR, PRESIDENT AND SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, AM I.T.A. NO.1626/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 2 ND FLOOR, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. VS. SHRI VASUDEO SALIAN, 35/751, ADARSH NAGAR, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400 025. PAN:AAGCS5624R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. SUMEET KUMAR, DR RESPONDENT BY : MR. MADHUR AGARWAL O R D E R PER R.V.EASWAR, PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE CIT( A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,50,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING SALARY FR OM A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATIO N RECEIVED FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED UNITS OF MUTUAL FUN D AMOUNTING TO RS.8,50,000/- IN THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTI NG YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF TH E INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT THE INVESTME NT WAS MADE BY HIS MOTHER OUT OF HER OWN SOURCES OF INCOME , BUT THE RELEVANT DETAILS ABOUT MOTHERS SOURCES OR HER PERM ANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER COULD NOT BE GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE AL SO INTIMATED THAT HIS MOTHER GOT HER SHARE IN THE FAMI LY PROPERTY IN 1994 WHICH WAS BEING INVESTED YEAR AFTER YEAR. AN A FFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFEC T THAT THE RELEVANT DETAILS COULD NOT BE COLLECTED AND SUBMITT ED DUE TO ITA NO.1626/MUM/10 2 NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS, RECORDS A ND SHORTAGE OF TIME. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SO URCES OF THE ASSESSEES MOTHER WERE NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESS EE, INVOKED SECTION 69A AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,50,000/- T O THE ASSESSEES INCOME. 4. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE COMPLETE D ETAILS OF THE COPIES OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE MUTUAL FUN D, BANK STATEMENT OF HIS MOTHER SMT. VIMLA KANCHAN ETC. AND THESE DETAILS WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE C IT(A). IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND FILED THE RELEVANT DE TAILS RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT UNDER COVER OF LETTER DATED 19.0 2.2009, A COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGES 6 & 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER ANY REMAND REPORT WAS SENT BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO THE CIT(A) AS THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO T HE SAME IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IT WAS HOWEVER CLARIFIED BEFOR E US BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT TO THE BEST O F HIS KNOWLEDGE NO REMAND REPORT WAS SENT BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE CIT(A) AFTER NOTICING THE D ETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT ALL THE INVEST MENTS HAD COME FROM SMT. VIMLA KANCHAN, THE ASSESSEES MOTHER WHO HAD SOLD THE ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE YEAR 19 94 FOR RS.10.18 LAKHS WHICH WAS USED TO MAKE THE FIXED DE POSITS WITH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK. THE DEPOSITS WERE REFLECTE D IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT ALSO BY DEBITS WITH THE SYNDIC ATE BANK, PRABHADEVI BRANCH. ON MATURITY, THE PROCEEDS OF THE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE REINVESTED IN BONDS AND MUTUAL FUNDS AND THEY WERE ALSO REFLECTED IN SMT. VIMLA KANCHANS ACCOUNT WITH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK. ON MATURITY THESE INVESTME NTS WERE AGAIN REINVESTED WITH HSBC, FRANKLIN INDIA, TEMPLET ON INDIA AND BAJAJ ALLIANZ. THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THESE AR E INVESTMENTS ITA NO.1626/MUM/10 3 ABOUT WHICH INFORMATION HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER BY HIS DEPARTMENT FOR VERIFICATION. SINCE THE CIT(A ) NOTICED THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENTS WERE PROPERLY EXPLAINED HE D ELETED THE ADDITION. 5. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A). THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE RELE VANT DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEY WERE FILED BEFOR E THE CIT(A) WITH ALL THE SUPPORTING ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS AND OTH ER RECORDS. THE CIT(A) SENT THEM TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR V ERIFICATION AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THOSE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ID NOT SEND ANY REMAND REPORT TO THE CIT(A). NEVERTHELESS THE C IT(A) HIMSELF TRACED THE SOURCES OF THE INVESTMENTS AND FOUND THA T ALL THE INVESTMENTS WERE PROPERLY EXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES MOTHER WITH THE HELP OF THE BANK ACCOUNT S, COPIES OF THE INVESTMENTS AND OTHER RELEVANT RECORDS. HE THER EFORE DELETED THE ADDITION. NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED B EFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE TO CONTRADICT THE BASIS ON WH ICH THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. IN THIS SITUATION, WE AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 12 TH JANUARY, 2011 IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- ( P.M. JAGTAP ) SD/- ( R.V.EASWAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED 12 TH JANUARY, 2011. SOMU ITA NO.1626/MUM/10 4 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A)-18, MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT-8 MUMBAI 5. THE DR F BENCH /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI