Ku. Priyanka Chaturvedi L/H of Late Smt.Sudha Silakar, Sagar V. The ACIT, Sagar

ITA 305/JAB/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5812 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH H P VERMA
• Keywords: Gift; Salary income; Source of fund

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.305 & 306/JAB/2008 A.YS. 1999-00 & 2002-03 KU. PRIYANKA CHATURVEDI, L/H OF LATE SMT. SUDHA SILAKARI, SAGAR PAN AVGPS 3063 G APPELLANT VS ACIT, CIRCLE-SAGAR RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY :S/SH. H.P. VERMA & ASHISH GOYAL RESPONDENT BY :SHRI K.K. SINGH, CIT, DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DIFFE RENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, JABALPUR, DATED 8.10.2008 & 1 0.10.2008, RESPECTIVELY. THE GROUND RAISED IS THAT LD. FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE INVESTMENT IN PUR CHASE OF LAND WAS PARTLY EXPLAINABLE AND IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 LAC (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 1999-00) AND IN HOLDING THAT THE INVESTMENT IN FDRS WAS PARTLY UNEXPLAINABLE AND IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,30,394/-. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, WE HAVE HEARD S HRI H.P. VERMA ALONG WITH SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE AND SHRI K.K. SINGH, LEARNED CIT. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE DIED AND THE ASSESS EE (DAUGHTER BEING LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED) COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE S OURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASING 1/3 RD SHARE IN PIECE OF LAND AND THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN FDRS PURCHASE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT A LENIENT VIEW MAY BE TAKEN. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT, DR CO NTENDED THAT A LENIENT VIEW HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THEREFORE, IT NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT T HE DECEASED ASSESSEE, WHO WAS A TEACHER IN THE CENTRAL SCHOOL, WAS ASKED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR ACQUIRING 1/3 RD SHARE IN LAND AT DINDAYAL NAGAR FOR RS.1,82,000/-. THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE FROM PAST SAVINGS. LIKEWISE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.3,62,080/- FOR PURCHASIN G FDRS, NSC AND KVP. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THESE INVES TMENTS WERE MADE 3 OUT OF HER SAVINGS FROM SALARY OF 30 YEARS. THE STA ND OF THE REVENUE IS THAT SINCE THE SON AND THE DAUGHTER WERE ALSO STUDY ING, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SAVE THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS FOR INVES TMENT. ON APPEALS, THE ADDITIONS WERE REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH ARE UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL BY THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE A FURT HER LIBERAL VIEW. THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER: 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORD AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR WAS ASKED TO PLACE ON RECOR D ANY EVIDENCE THAT HER HUSBAND WAS GAINFULLY EMPLOYE D BUT WHICH HE FAILED TO. THUS THE CLAIM THAT HER HUS BAND WAS BEARING THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES HAS REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SHE WAS A TEACHER IN CENTRAL SCHOOL DRAWING A SALAR Y OF ABOUT RS.10,000/- P.M., THE CLAIM THAT SHE HAD M ADE SOME SAVING OUT OF HER EARNING CANNOT BE DISCOUNTED . BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT ALSO DOES NOT LOOK VERY PLAUSIBLE THAT SHE COULD HAVE SAVED SO MUCH AS TO INVEST RS.1,82,000/- OUT OF IT. THUS, CONSIDERING T HE ENTIRETY OF FACTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD M EET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE BY CONSIDERING INVESTMENT TO THE EX TENT OF RS.82,000/- TO BE OUT OF HER PAST SAVINGS. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1.00 LAKH THEREFORE IS HELD TO BE FROM UN-EXPLAINED SOURCES. THE ADDITION THUS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1.00 LAKH IS CONFIRMED. THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS.82,000/-. THE SERVICE OF 30 YEARS OF SERVICE HAS NOT BEEN DIS PUTED BY THE REVENUE. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS THE GENERAL HABIT OF THE LADIES TO MAKE SAVINGS FROM THEIR SOURCES OF INCOME. AT THE SAME T IME, THE LADIES ARE NORMALLY GETTING GIFTS FROM RELATIVES, PARENTS ON C ERTAIN OCCASIONS. SINCE THE HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS NO MORE, T HEREFORE, THERE 4 WAS EVERY POSSIBILITY THAT SHE MIGHT BE GETTING FIN ANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM RELATIVES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A LONG P ERIOD OF 30 YEARS OF SALARY INCOME, THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTAL ITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE PARENTS OF THE L/H (THE PRES ENT ASSESSEE) ARE NO MORE, THEREFORE, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT SHE MA Y NOT BE IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE INVESTMENT, THEREFORE, A LENIENT VIEW IS REQUIRED. TO PUT AN END TO THE LITIGATION UNDER THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, THE REMAINING ADDITIONS ARE REDUCED TO FURTHER 50% EACH OF THE AMOUNTS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). FINALLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15 TH DECEMBER, 2010. (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15.12.2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, G UARD FILE !VYAS!