Daulatrao Bapu Patil, Satara V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 4, Satara

ITA 3065/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2707 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY DHOKE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT . / ITA NOS.3061 TO 3065/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999-2000 TO 2003-04 DAULATRAO BAPU PATIL, PRIT PRATIK AYODHYA NAGARI DHEBIWADI ROAD, AGASHIVNAGAR, KARAD, DIST. SATARA-415110 PAN : ACBPP2726R /APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-4, SATARA . /RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY DHOKE / DATE OF HEARING : 08.11.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.11.2018 / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THESE FIVE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE RELATE TO THE A.YRS. 1999- 2000 TO 2003-04. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THE SE APPEALS, I AM, THEREFORE, PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY THIS CON SOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. I AM TAKING UP THE FACTUAL SCENARIO FROM THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03, WHICH WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR ON REPRESENT ATIVE BASIS. FACTUAL MATRIX RELATING TO THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE ASSESSEE, A BANK EMPLOYEE, FILED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,34,40 0/-. A REPORT WAS RECEIVED FROM ADIT (INVESTIGATION), KOLHAPUR, W HICH TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RECURRING DEPOSITS. FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURA L LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.1,90,000/- AND IN R.DS AT RS.36,000/-. ON B EING ITA NOS.3061 TO 3065/PUN/2017 DAULATRAO BAPU PATIL 2 CALLED UPON TO FURNISH THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS, THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE RECEIVED THE ABOVE MONEY FROM D.B. PAT IL (HUF) WHICH, IN TURN, WAS UTILISED FOR PURCHASING AGRICULTURAL LAND ET C. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION SO RENDERED ON T HE GROUND THAT D.B. PATIL (HUF) HAD NEVER FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME AND THE CONCEPT OF CREATION OF D.B. PATIL (HUF) EMERGED ONLY AFTER INVESTIGATION WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ADIT (INVESTIGATION), K OLHAPUR. HE, THEREFORE, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,26,000/- FOR THE A.Y. 2 002- 03. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONCUR WITH THE SUBMISSIONS ADV ANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. 3. SIMILAR POSITION PREVAILS FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000 FOR WHICH ADDITION OF RS.1,10,500/- WAS MADE AND SUSTAINED; RS.59,000 /- FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01; RS.3,39,561 FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02; AND RS.1.00 LAKH FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY S UCH ADDITIONS. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVA NT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROCE EDED ON THE PREMISE AS IF THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND DREW INFERENCES ACCORDINGLY. AS AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY, NOT HAVING ANY TRAITS OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT HE M ADE INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND R.DS ETC., OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM D.B. PATIL (HUF). THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION SIMPLY FOR THE REASON THAT NO RE TURNS WERE FILED BY SUCH AN HUF. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE HUF WAS HOLDING CERTAIN LAND FROM WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS GENER ATED AND SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE ITA NOS.3061 TO 3065/PUN/2017 DAULATRAO BAPU PATIL 3 AUTHORITIES HAVE BRUSHED ASIDE THE EXPLANATION SO GIVEN B Y THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT EVEN FIRST EXAMINING THE EXISTENCE OR OT HERWISE OF SOME AGRICULTURAL LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE HUF AND THE RESULT ANT INCOME WHICH, AS WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN USED BY THE AS SESSEE USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND R.DS. I F THERE EXISTS SOME AGRICULTURAL LAND PERTAINING TO THE HUF, THE N THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF INVEST MENTS MADE BY HIM FROM THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE HUF, CANNO T BE IGNORED. SINCE THESE BASIC FACTS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OR OTHERWISE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE HUF AND THE EARNING THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME WITH ITS QUANTUM FROM SUCH LAND HAVE NOT BEEN EXA MINED, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET A DEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE SET-ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RE STORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR EXAMINING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN TERMS SET OUT ABOVE. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED AGAINST THE INITIATION OF R E- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH GROUND IS, THEREFORE, DISMIS SED AS NOT ARGUED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- (R.S.SYAL) / VICE PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 08 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 ITA NOS.3061 TO 3065/PUN/2017 DAULATRAO BAPU PATIL 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS)-13, PUNE 4. / THE PR. CIT-3, PUNE 5. , , SMC / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE / BY ORDER, / TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE*