Daulatrao Balazaheb Jadhav, Kolhapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2279/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5715 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV GHEI
• Keywords: Salary income; Document seized; Source of fund; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , AM . / ITA NO. 2279 /P U N/20 1 6 BLOC PERIOD : 1996 - 97 TO 2002 - 03 (PART PERIOD) DAULATRAO BALASAHEB JADHAV, A/P SONARWADI, TAL. BHUDARGAD, KOLHAPUR 416209 . / APPELLANT PAN: AAPPJ3985L VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRA L CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV GHEI / DATE OF HEARING : 09 . 04 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT: 14 . 0 5 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH E APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) , PUNE - 11, PUNE , DATED 1 2 . 07 .20 1 6 RELATING TO BLOCK PERIOD 1996 - 97 TO 2002 - 03 (PART) AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BC(C) R.W.S . 263 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ITA NO. 2279 /P U N/20 1 6 DAULATRAO BALASAHEB JADHAV 2 1. THAT THE L D CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS & IN LAW IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND AND WITHOUT INTERPRETING THE HON'BLE ITATS ORDER IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. 2. THAT THE ID CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO EVIDENCE REGARDING INVESTMENT OF CHAVAN FAMILY CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSES HAVE NOT BEEN FILED. THE DETAILS WERE FILED IN ORIGINAL APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT (A) . 3. THAT THE ID CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY CHAVAN FAMILY REGARDING THE CULTIVATION OF THEIR AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) IN ORIGINAL APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT THE ID CIT(A) ERRED IN NO T CONSIDERING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND TAXES PAID RECEIPTS WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE TAXES ARE PAID BY ASSESSEE. 5. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE BOTH A.O. AND CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SUGARCANE RECEIPTS IN THE NAME OF REAL BROTHERS & THEIR FAMILIES, WHILE ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 6. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE BOTH A.O. AND CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE NAME OF REAL BROTHERS & THEIR FAMILIES CU LTIVATED BY THE APPELLANT WHILE ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 3. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD., KOLHAPUR. THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ASSESSEE WERE SE ARCHED BY PARTY NO.KC - 8 AT NAGALA PARK, NEAR Z.P. KOLHAPUR AND BY PARTY N - 7 AT SONAWADI, TAL - BHUDARGAD, DIST. KOLHAPUR. THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTOR IN GOKUL AND ALSO WORK ED AS LECTURER IN A COLLEGE. HE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM SALARY ONLY IN THE RETURN OF INC OME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT ON 12.12.2002 DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO PREPARE RETURN OF INCOME INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY, FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING UNDISCLOSE D INCOME OF 10,43,726/ - ON 15.01.2003. DURING THE REVIS ION PROCEEDINGS, THE COMMISSIONER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF INVESTMENT OF 4,65,025/ - . THUS, THE COMMISSIONER PASSED AN ORDER UN DER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CANCELLING SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW. THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT WAS TAKEN UP. THE ITA NO. 2279 /P U N/20 1 6 DAULATRAO BALASAHEB JADHAV 3 ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED VARIOUS SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND VARIOUS ENTRIES AND COM PUTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT 43,53,610/ - . 4. THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL IN THE FIRST ROUND, AGAINST WHICH THE APPEAL WAS FILED TO THE TRIBUNAL , WHICH RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF ALL THE ISSUES INCLUDING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RA ISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED CONSEQUENT ORDER, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PARA 7 OF ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, IN WHICH ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE - INDIVIDUAL ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES ALLEGING THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ANCESTRAL AND THE ADDITION, IF ANY, IN THE STATUS OF HUF, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO SUCH CLAIM OF HUF STATUS WAS EVER BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OF THE AU THORITIES, HENCE THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE SAID CLAIM BEING MADE NOW. HOWEVER, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CORRECTLY DETERMINE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TH E ISSUE OF ADDITION UNDER CHALLENGE WAS 31,64,057/ - WHICH WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS PER DEFICIT C' ANNEXED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER ARE IN PARA 15. THE ANNEXURE DEFICIT C' HAS BEEN PREPARED AFTER CONSIDERING SOURCES OF INCOME AND THE AP PLICATION OF FUNDS. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF FAMILY OF JADHAV AND CHAVAN FAMILY AS PER TABULATED DETAILS AT PAGE 5 OF PA PER BOOK. HE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE SAID EXPLANATION WAS AVAILABLE TO THE EXTENT OF 23,18,650/ - . IT WAS PUT TO THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE MATTER IS SO OLD, THEN ESTIMATED ADDITION BE UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, BY ITA NO. 2279 /P U N/20 1 6 DAULATRAO BALASAHEB JADHAV 4 ACCEPTING EXPLANATION TO THE EXTENT OF 15 LAKHS (ADHOC). THE LEARNED AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY AGREED TO THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 15 LAKHS AND BALANCE OF 16,64,057/ - IS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - ( D.KARUNAKARA RAO ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 14 TH MAY , 201 9 . G G C C V V S S R R / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A), PUNE - 11, PUNE ; 4. THE PR.CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE