VIJAYA LAXMI NAIDU, MUMBAI V. CIT(A) 31, MUMBAI

ITA 2457/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93081 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILENDRA P YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH M BALEKUNDRI
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 147; 69; 144

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 2457 /MUM/20 1 5 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 ) VIJAYA LAXMI NAIDU, G - 18, TARAPORA GARDEN, OFF. NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI(W), MUMBAI - 40005 3 / VS. CIT (A) - 31 , MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAACG 2115G ( / APPELLAN T ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI GIRISH M. BALEKUNDRI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILENDRA P. YADAV / DATE OF HEARING : 04 .06.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .06 .2015 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN A PPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER BY THE C OMMISSIONER OF I NCOME T AX (A PPEALS ) - 37, MUMBAI ( CIT (A) FOR SHORT) DATED 05.01.2015, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R (AY) 2005 - 06 FRAMED U/S. 144 R / W S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINA FTER) DATED 31.12.2012. 2 ITA NO. 2457 /MUM/20 1 5 (A.Y. 2005 - 06 ) VIJAYA LAXMI NAIDU VS. CIT (A) 2. THE APPEAL RAISES A SINGLE ISSUE , I.E. , WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION IN THE SUM OF RS . 2 L A C S U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE, LEAD ING TO THE ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148. THE ASSESSMENT, FRAMED BY ADDING THE SAID SUM TO THE OTHER INCOME OF RS . 19,482/ - , RETURNED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148, WAS APPEALED AGAINST. HOWEVER, NO CASE IN ITS RESPECT BEING MADE OUT, THE SAID SUM S TOOD C ONFIRMED FOR ADDITION VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 3. EXPLAINING THE ASSESSEES CASE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED A UTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE (AR) , THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN OLD LADY, A SENIOR CITIZEN, FACING HEALTH PROBLEMS, WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL F UNDS (MFS) DURING THE YEAR, INFORMATION ON WHICH HAD C O ME TO THE POS SESSI ON OF THE D EPARTMENT THROUGH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT (AIR) ; THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT FILED ANY RETURN FOR THE YEAR . S HE HA D BEEN A HOUSEWIFE THROUGH OUT, AND THIS WA S HE R FIRST ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ACT, WHEREIN , SHE, ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH OF HER HUSBAND, TOOK TUITIONS OF SMALL CHILDREN. ADDUCING A COPY OF A J OINT B ANK A CCO UNT , I.E., OF , ONE , REKHA NAIDU, STATED TO BE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER, AND THE ASSESSEE , WITH HDFC BANK, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (W EST ), MUMBAI , REFLECTING A WITHDRAWAL OF RS . 2 L A C S ON ../05/04 (DATE NOT CLEAR), IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE INVESTM ENT IN QUESTION WAS OUT OF THE GIFT OF THE SUM RECEIVED FROM HER DAUGHTER. TRUE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS BEFORE THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES, BUT THAT WAS FOR THE REASON THAT SHE WAS KEEPING ILL, AND FOR THAT REASON HOSPITALIZED AT VARIO US TIMES. THIS WAS ALSO THE REASON FOR N OT RESPONDING TO THE OPPORTUNITIES EXTENDED BY THE LD . CIT(A); SHE HAVING SHIFTED TO HER DAUGHTER S RESIDENCE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES , AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE EXPLANATION AS TO THE SOURCE INVESTMENT IN SECURITIES WAS THE RECEIPT OF INSURANCE MONEY AT RS . 2.48 L A C S ON THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND. THE SAID 3 ITA NO. 2457 /MUM/20 1 5 (A.Y. 2005 - 06 ) VIJAYA LAXMI NAIDU VS. CIT (A) EXPLANATION IS THUS INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT STANDS STATED BEFORE ME, OR EVEN THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES . AT THE SAME TIME, IT CANNOT BE D ENIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN A D EBILITATED CONDITION ; COPIES OF MEDICAL BILLS OF RECENT DATE /S BEING PLACED ON RECORD CLEARLY EX HIBIT HER ILLNESS, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A PERSISTING ASPECT. THE DOCUMENT IN THE FORM OF THE BANK STATEMENT , NOW ADDUCED , SUGGEST S A STRONG PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST THE ADDITION. NO DOUBT , IT IS A CASE OF LACHES IN COMPLYING WITH THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ACT BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES, BUT THE SAME STAND REASONABL Y EX PLAINED IN TERMS OF THE ASSESSEES ILLNESS, WHICH CLEARLY DISLOCA TES A PERSON, WHICH IS LITERALLY THE CASE, WITH THE ASSESEE STATING OF H AV ING SINC E SHIFTED TO HER DAUGHTERS PLACE . THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL PROCESS IS PREMISED ON THE EDIFICE OF JUSTICE AND , THEREFORE, PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCY SHOULD NOT OVERRIDE ITS DUE CONSIDE RATION (REFER : SAROJ AGGARWAL V. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 497 (SC) ; PRABHAVATI SHAH V. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (SC ) . THE MATTER IS , ACCORDINGLY, RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR A CONSIDERATION AFRESH OF THE ASSESSEES CASE SO AS TO ENABLE HER T O MEET THE R EVENUE S CASE AGAINST IT. THE AO SHALL ADJUDICATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT. THIS ORDER MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING MADE A N Y REFERENCE TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 30. 06.2015 SD/ - (SANJAY ARORA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 30 .06.2015 . ./ SK , PS 4 ITA NO. 2457 /MUM/20 1 5 (A.Y. 2005 - 06 ) VIJAYA LAXMI NAIDU VS. CIT (A) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPO NDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI