Zanib Bano, Kolkata V. ITO 37(4) KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1657/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83199 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, SM C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: KOLKATA ( ) BEFORE , ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] / I.T.A NO. 1 65 7 /KOL/20 1 2 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 7 - 0 8 ZAINAB BANO VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WD - 3 7 ( 4 ), KOLKATA (PAN:A ISPB5284F ) ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 2 4 . 11 .201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26 . 1 1 .201 4 FOR THE APPELLANT : N O N E FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI K. K. TRIPATHI , JCIT, SR. DR / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARI SING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A) - XX I V , KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 733 /CIT(A) - XXIV / 37(4)/09 - 10 DATED 23 . 0 5 .201 2 . ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD - 3 7 ( 4 ), KOLKAT A U/S. 14 4 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 24 .1 2 .20 0 9 . 2 . THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.,180,000/ - ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. 3 . I HAVE HEARD LD. SR. DR AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED FROM ITS DETAILS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ONE HO USE PROPERTY ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND FOR A SUM OF RS.30 LACS. THE ASSESSEE S HUSBAND HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.27,00,000/ - AND BALANCE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY ASSESSEE I.E. RS. 3 LACS. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES. A SSESSEE S COUNSEL FILED LIST OF PARTIES FROM WHOM THE MONEY WAS BORROWED FOR A SUM OF RS.80,000/ - TO BE INVESTED IN PROPERTY BUT NO OTHER DETAILS WERE PRODUCED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TREATED THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS.3 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BE FORE CIT(A), WHO CONSIDERED 60% OF INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINED AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,80,000/ - BY OBSERVING IN PARA 2.3 AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO.1 6 5 7 /K/201 2 ZAINAB BANO AY 200 7 - 0 8 2.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A/R. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL, THE LD. A/R HAS FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THE LD. A/R HAS EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN FRESH LOAN OF RS.70,000/ - . HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID LOAN OF RS.70,000/ - . THE LD. A/R HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF HER RETURNS OF INCOME FOR SEVERAL YEARS. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT RECEIVES SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF GIFTS FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS REGULARLY. SHE ALSO EARNS SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF INCOME FROM EMBROIDERY. CONSID ERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN FULLY THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE DONORS TO MAKE GIFTS YEARS AFTER YEARS, HUMAN PROBABILITIES, RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM, THE OCCASION FOR MAKING GIFT AND THE EXISTENC E OF RECIPROCITY. THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND HUMAN PROBABILITIES DO NOT FULLY SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I HOLD THAT 60% OF HER INVESTMENT IN THE FLAT IS UNEXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES TO RS.1,80,000/ - IN PLACE OF RS.3,00,000/ - . THUS THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS.1,20,000/ - . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. I FIND FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CO - APPLICANT WITH HER HUSBAND IMRAN AHMED IN PURCHASING PROPERTY AT 2/1, RADHA GOBINDA SAHA LANE, KOLKATA - 17 AND THE SHARE OF HER CONTRIBUTION WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3 LACS ONLY. BEFORE CIT( A) ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF RETURN FOR LAST SO MANY YEARS FROM WHERE IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF GIFT FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS. SHE HAS ALSO EARNED INCOME FROM EMBROIDERY. I FEEL FROM THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECOR D THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S ACCUMULATED RS. 3 LACS FOR MAKING THIS INVESTMENT. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) CANNOT REJECT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE SUMMARILY AND ESTIMATE THE SAVINGS AT 60% ONLY. I FIND NO REASON TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION. HENC E, I DELETE THE SAME. APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 6 . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.11.2014 SD/ - , (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26 TH NOVEMBER , 201 4 JD.(SR.P.S.) - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 3 ITA NO.1 6 5 7 /K/201 2 ZAINAB BANO AY 200 7 - 0 8 1 . / A PPELLANT ZAINAB BANO, C/O IMRAN AHMED, SWIFT AND FAST TRANSPORT, P - 9, NEW CIT ROAD, 45 TH FLOOR, BOWBAZAR, KOLKATA - 700 001. 2 / RESPONDENT ITO, WARD - 3 7 ( 4 ), KOLKATA . 3 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. / A CIT KOLKATA / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .