I.T.O. Ward -3, BHILAI(CG) V. SMT TULIKA TIWARI, BHILAI(CG)

ITA 167/BIL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0201 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S R RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 167/RPR/2014. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A. NO.16 7 /RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER - 3, SMT. TULIKA TIWARI, BHILAI. VS. BHILAI. PAN AAXPT1822F. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI GITESH KUMAR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.R. RAO. DATE OF HEARING : 18 - 10 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 ST NOV.2016. O R D E R. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), RAIPUR DATED 19 - 06 - 2014 A ND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.37,00,000/ - IN CASH IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 07240110001400 WITH UCO BANK, PATNA. THE SOURCE OF SAID DEPOS IT WAS EXPLAINED AS RETURN OF AMOUNT ADVANCED TO DR. PANKAJ KUMAR PANDEY, PATNA FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OF RS.43,73,488 AFTER DEATH OF HER MOTHER - IN - LAW WAS NOT F OUND CONVINCING BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH SATISFACTORY EVIDENCES REGARDING THE FORM IN WHICH THE MONEY WAS KEPT IN THE INTERVENING PERIOD. THEREFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 2 ITA NO. 167/RPR/2014. HE HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE CLOSING BALANCE OF RS .43,73,788/ - WAS HIGHER THAN THE WEALTH TAX LIMIT BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY WEALTH TAX RETURN. 3. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING AS UNDER : 3 . 3 I HAV E G ON E THR O U G H THE OB S ERV A TI O N S OF TH E A. O . A ND S U B M ISSIONS OF TH E APP E LL A NT . THE UNDISPUTED F A C T S O F TH E CA S E ARE TH A T F A THER - IN - LAW O F TH E A PPELLANT HAD R E T I RED AS CPO FR O M N . E . R A IL WAY S . H E AND HI S W IF E WE R E R EG UL A R IN CO M E - T AX A SSESS E ES TILL TH EI R D E ATH . TH E Y HAD O NLY O N E SON A ND A PPELL A NT I S T H E IR D A U G HT E R - IN - L A W. TH E STAT E M E NTS OF AFFAIRS PREPARED ON THE BASIS O F THEIR INCOM E TA X R E TURNS D E MONSTRATE AVAIL A BILIT Y OF SIZ E ABL E S A VIN GS IN DIFF E RENT F O RM S LIKE D E BT O R S, GO LD , C AS H - IN - H A ND , E TC. C O PI ES O F THEIR INCOM E - T AX R E TURNS AND C O MPUT A TI O N O F INC O M E A R E S T A NDIN G EV ID E N CE O F TH E S AVIN GS . TH E R E I S AL SO NO DISPUTE R EG ARDIN G M I G R A TI O N O F TH E A PP E LLANT FROM BIHAR TO BHIL A I. U ND E R SU C H CIRCUM S TANCES, THE LIFELON G S AV IN GS, ASSE T S , E T C. W O ULD N A TUR A LL Y FOL L OW THE MIGRANTS : . AS PER A PPEL L ANT , SHE INITI A LL Y WI S H E D TO SE TTL E D DO W N A T P A TNA HENCE , SH E AD V ANCED RS.35 , 00 , 000 / - . F O R PUR C H AS E O F H O U SE - T O O N E DR. PANKAJ PANDEY BUT DUE TO CH A N G E OF DECI S ION , S HE O BT A INED TH E M O N EY B AC K A ND D E P OS IT E D IN TH E S A ID B A NK A CCO UNT . T H E A . O . I S A L SO N O T DI S P UT IN G T H ESE F AC T S . U N D E R TH ESE C IR C UM S TA N CES, IT H A S T O BE HE LD TH A T TH E A PPELLANT HAS SATISFACTORILY DISCHARGED THE ONUS CASE O N HE R BY F UR NIS HIN G N ECESS A R Y E VIDENC ES IN THI S CO N T EX T . TH E IMM E D I ATE SO U R CE O F D E P OS I T WA S N O T DI S PUT E D . TH E A. O S SOLE O BJE CTION TH A T TH E APP E L L A NT HA S N O T SA T I S FAC T OR IL Y E X PL A IN E D TH E F O RM OF H O LDIN G TH E CAPIT A L FR O M DEATH O F A PPELLANT ' S M O TH E R IN L AW TILL D A T E O F ADVANCE TO D R . PANKAJ PAND EY , H E NC E THE AMOUNT REPRE S ENT S UN EX PLAIN E D INC O M E I S FEEBLE AND FARFETCH E D. THE ST A T E M E N T OF AFFA IR S SUBSTANTIATED THE F O RM O F H O LDIN G OF THE S AV IN GS. THE A . O . HIM SE L F CON C LUD E D TH A T I F THE SA VIN G S ARE W O RK E D OUT ON THE BA S I S O F I T R E TURN S F O R F IV E YEA R S, THER E R E M A INED UNE X PL A IN E D D IF FERENCE OF RS . L 0 , 00 , 000 1 - , BUT H E DID NOT O FFE R A NY R EAS ONS WH Y IT WAS CONSIDERED TO R E CKON SAVINGS OF ONLY FIVE YEAR S, W HEN THE APPELL A NT HAS FILED SUCH RETURNS FOR PA S T SE V E R A L YE AR S . THERE IS NO AV E RM E NT TH A T TH E A PPELL A NT HA S USED THAT SAID SAVIN GS IN S O ME O THER F O RM O R IN SO M E O TH E R ASSE T S . 3 . 4 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DI S CU SS ION A ND L OO KIN G T O TH E C OPI ES OF L . T . R E TURN S O F APPELLANT ' S IN - LAWS , CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY SHRI VIN O D TI WA RI , S P O U SE O F TH E APPELLANT AND AFFIDAVIT OF D R . PANKAJ KUMAR PANDEY , WHICH WAS NOT DISPUTED B Y THE A . O ., I AM OF THE CONSIDER E D OPINION THAT THE APP E LL A NT HAS SATISF A CTORIL Y D ISC H A R G ED HER BURD E N TO EXPLAIN SOURCES OF THE D E POSIT AND THE A O HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BAS I S O F SUSPICION AND LONG DRAWN CONCLUSIONS. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT NO ADDITION IS POSSIBLE MEREL Y ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION . ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITI O N OF RS .3 7 , 00 , 000 1 - M A DE B Y THE A.O . IS NOT J USTIFIED. HENC E . DELETED. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 5. I HAVE HEARD B OTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS NO REGULAR SOURCE OF INCOME TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT RS.37 LAKHS CASH DEPOSIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AT PATNA. THE AO HAS FOUND THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THAT SHE RECEIVED ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OF RS.43,73 , 488/ - AFTER THE DEATH OF HER MOTHER - IN - LAW AND THEN ADVANCED SUMS TO DR. PANKAJ 3 ITA NO. 167/RPR/2014. KUMAR PANDEY FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH WAS LATER ON REFUNDED , TO BE NOT SATISFACTORY. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS F OUND THAT IN - LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REGULAR INCOME - TAX ASSESSEES. THAT T HEIR STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF INCOME - TAX RETURNS DEMONSTRATE AVAILABILITY OF SIZEABLE SAVINGS. IN THIS REGARD NO FACTS OR FIGURES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ONLY LACONICALLY BRUSHE D ASIDE THE AOS OBSERVATION REGARDING NON SUBSTANTI ATI ON OF THE SOURCES OF FUNDS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPE A LS) TO COGENTLY BRING ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE VERACITY OF A SSESSEE RECEIVING SIZEABLE FUNDS FROM HER MOTHER - IN - LAW IS ESTABLISHED. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF NOV., 2016. SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DATED: 21 ST NOV., 2016. 4 ITA NO. 167/RPR/2014. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SMT. TULIKA TIWARI, 50 - B, D - MARKET, MARODA, BHILAI DURG (DIST.), C.G. 2. I.T.O. - 3, BHILAI. 3. C.I.T., RAIPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS), RAIPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, RAIPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKODE.