Neeraj Yadav, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-3(3), Kanpur

ITA 198/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 19823714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.198/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004 - 2005 SHRI NEERAJ YADAV, 640 - C, S - BLOCK, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:ARTPK6430C VS. I.T.O. - 3(3), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 16/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 6 /04/2014 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 24/12/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,96,696/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF CAR. 2. SHRI ABHIN AV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE APPEARED FOR SHRI B. C. MEENA AND MADE SUBMISSIONS THAT SHRI B. C. MEENA, COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR ON ACCOUNT OF HIS PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT IN SOME OTHER MATTER. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IS ALSO RECEIVED AND SAME IS PLACED ON FILE. 3. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), I FIND THAT THIS APPEAL CAN BE DISPOSED OF EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), I FIND THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED T HAT THIS CAR WAS GIFTED TO HIM BY HIS BROTHER - IN - LAW AT THE TIME OF HIS MARRIAGE. BUT THE SE FACT S OF PURCHASE OF CAR DISCLOSED BY HIS BROTHER - IN - LAW WERE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY CIT(A) AND HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 2 4. THE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE PL ACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, I FIND THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN TH E INVESTMENT IN CAR BUT BEFORE CIT(A) HE HAS CONTENDED THAT IT WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM HIS BROTHER - IN - LAW AT THE TIME OF HIS MARRIAGE AND HE HAS ALREADY DECLARED THE PURCHASE OF CAR IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. BUT THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT PLACED BEFORE US, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE VERIFIED WHETHER THE BROTHER - IN - LAW OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE PURCHASE OF CAR IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIF ICATION OF THESE FACTS. IF IT IS PROVED THAT THE BROTHER - IN - LAW HAS PURCHASED THE CAR AND DECLARED IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THE COST OF PURCHASE OF CAR SHOULD NOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. I, THEREFORE, S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS INDICATED ABOVE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 6 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 4 ) SD/. [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 6 /04/2014 *C.L. SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR