Ajit Kossambe, Goa V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Panaji

ITA 206/PAN/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93445 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B BARTHAKUR LD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O . 206 /PNJ/20 06 : (A.Y 2000 - 01 ) AJIT KOSSAMBE SHANTI NAGAR, PONDA, GOA. PAN : ADRPK1768K ( APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), PANAJI, GOA (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHAM KAMAT, C.A REVENUE BY : B. BARTHAKUR , LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 / 06 /201 5 DATE OF ORDER : 03 / 06 /201 5 O R D E R 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), PANAJI, GOA IN APPEAL NO. 26/PNJ/06 - 07 DT. 9.10.2006 FOR THE A.Y 2000 - 01. SHRI SHAM KAMAT, C.A REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI B. BARTHAKUR, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THIS APPEAL IS A SET ASIDE APPEAL FROM THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI AT GOA IN TAX APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2007 DT. 29.10.2004. CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT, THE ORIGINAL ORDER DT. 15.2.2007 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL STOOD QUASHED AND SET ASID E AND THE APPEAL WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR DECIDING AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 2. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IS AGAINST ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,66,000/ - MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF PART OF THE COST OF PURCHASING A PLOT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE 2 ITA NO. 206/PNJ/2006 (A.Y : 2000 - 01) ASSESSEE IS A VETERINARY DOCTOR AND DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SALARY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,03,811/ - AND AFTER ALL DEDUCTIONS, T HE TAKE HOME SALARY STOOD AT RS. 1,65,544/ - . IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE WAS HAVING AN INCOME OF RS. 40,000/ - WHICH HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PLOT AND THE SOURCE WAS FROM STITCHING AND EMBROIDE RY. IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE CLAIM WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,000/ - . IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. AO HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF RS. 2,90,000/ - BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE SALE OF A FLAT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SOLD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4 LACS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IF ALL THE SOURCES ARE ACCEPTED, THEN, NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE O F THE SITE BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD SURVIVE. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE COPY OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PLOT NOR DID HE HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE INCOME OF THE SPOUSE BEING FROM EMBROIDERY AND STITCHING. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY OWNED NEARLY 28 HECTARES OF LAND AND THE EN TIRE LANDED PROPERTY WAS COVERED BY CASHEW NUT TREES, COCONUT TREES, MANGO TREES, CHICKOO TREES AND BANANA GARDEN. ON SOME PART OF THE LAND, PADDY AND VEGETABLES WERE ALSO GROWN. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE LD. AO WAS SHOWN AT PAGES 6 & 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION MADE WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND LD. CIT(A). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NO EVIDENCES WERE AVAILABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS 3 ITA NO. 206/PNJ/2006 (A.Y : 2000 - 01) ALSO CLEARLY ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.2,90,000/ - DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDI NG 31.3.2000 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y 2000 - 01. WITH THIS IN MIND, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PG. 2 WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SALARY INCOME OF RS. 1,65,544/ - OUT OF WHICH A POSSIBLE SAVINGS OF RS. 60,000/ - IS ACCEPTABLE IN SO FAR AS FOR TH E A.Y 2001 - 02 THE LD. AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED RS. 60,000/ - AS THE POSSIBLE SAVINGS FROM SALARY. FOR THE A.Y 2001 - 02, THE LD. AO HAS ALSO ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY QUANTIFIED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. CONSEQ UENTLY, FOR THIS YEAR ALSO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ACCEPTABLE BUT THE SAME WOULD STAND RESTRICTED TO RS. 15,000/ - . ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES SPOUSES INCOME. THE DIVIDEND INCOME IS A DOCUMENTED INCOME, SO ALS O, THE FD ENCASHED, WHICH WAS IN THE DAUGHTERS NAME, AS ALSO, THE INTEREST INCOME. IF THE SAID INCOMES ARE ALL TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE FOUND TO BE HAVING AN INCOME/SAVINGS OF NEARLY RS. 4 LACS DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS WOULD ADEQUATELY COVER THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 2,66,000/ - PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PLOT. CONSEQUENTLY, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,66,000/ - DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND THEREFORE STANDS D ELETED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 3 /06/2015. S D / - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 0 3 /06/ 201 5 *SSL* 4 ITA NO. 206/PNJ/2006 (A.Y : 2000 - 01) COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER , 5 ITA NO. 206/PNJ/2006 (A.Y : 2000 - 01) DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ORDER ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 0 2 .06.2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 0 2 .06.2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER N/A JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER N/A JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 0 2 /06/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 3 /06/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 0 3 /06/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER