ITO,Ward-1(2), kolkata, Kolkata V. Sri Abdul Rauf Ansari, Howrah

ITA 1642/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78360 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A P ROY
• Assessee Lawyers: G R SAHA
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 1642/KOL./2012 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 PAGE 1 TO 3 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA CORAM : SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (A CCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.: 1642/KOL./ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 INCOME TAX OFFICER,...........................,.... ...........APPELLANT WARD-1(2), KOLKATA, 4 TH FLOOR, R/N-18, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 -VS.- SRI ABDUL RAUF ANSARI,............................. ..................RESPONDENT A.R. ENGINEERING WORKS, 92, GANGARAM BAIRAGI LANE, HOWRAH-711 101 [PAN : ACWPA 9415 B] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI A.P. ROY, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI G.R. SAHA, A.R., FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 03, 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 03, 2014 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOLKATA DAT ED 02.08.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- (1) THAT LD. CIT(APPEAL) ERRED IN DELETION OF ENTIR E ADDITION OF RS.21,15,469/- MADE ON UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVEST MENT IN MUTUAL FUND. (2) THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETION OF ENTIRE ADD ITION OF RS.21,15,469/- MADE BY THE AO MERELY ON THE BASIS O F I.T.A. NO.: 1642/KOL./2012 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 PAGE 1 TO 3 2 SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH PR OPERTY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REMAND REPORT. 3. IN THIS CASE, AS PER ITS DETAILS THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS.2 1,15,469/-. DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN TH E SOURCES THEREOF. ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO ADD THE AMOUNT INVES TED IN MUTUAL FUNDS AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC TION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING AS UNDER:- AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE W RITTEN SUBMISSION ALONG WITH THE REMAND REPORT AND COUNTER COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOTICED THAT ADDITI ON OF RS.21,15,469/- U/ 69 WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTM ENT IN THE MUTUAL FUND ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION. AS SESSEE ALONGWITH HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER HAD SOLD AGRICULTUR AL LAND IN DISTRICT HOOGHLY BY A CONVEYANCE DEED DT. 24.12. 2006 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.22,20,000/- RECEIVED IN CASH. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT WITH HSBC BANK F OR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1 ST APRIL, 2007 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2008 EXPLAINING THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS FOR RS.21,1 5,469/- OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FO R CONSIDERATION OF RS.22,20,000/-. THE BASIC FACTS RE GARDING SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RECEIPT OF CASH ON 24 .12.2006 HAD NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT. KEEPING IN VIEW THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER F OR RS.21,15,469/- IS DELETED. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER HAD SOLD A GRICULTURAL LAND IN THE DISTRICT OF HOOGHLY AND THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.22, 20,000/- WAS RECEIVED I.T.A. NO.: 1642/KOL./2012 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 PAGE 1 TO 3 3 IN CASH. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILE D CASH FLOW STATEMENT WITH HSBC BANK EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND A ND RECEIPT OF CASH THEREON HAS NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED BY THE REVENUE, T HE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD DAY OF JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR SINGH SHAMIM YAHYA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 3 RD DAY OF JULY, 2014 COPIES TO : (1) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), KOLKATA, 4 TH FLOOR, R/N-18, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (2) SRI ABDUL RAUF ANSARI, A.R. ENGINEERING WORKS, 92, GANGARAM BAIRAGI LANE, HOWRAH-711 101 (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.