JUDY MANSHANI, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3162/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0892 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G N MAKAWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: KETAN PANCHMIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Source of fund
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 3162 / MUM./ 2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 10 ) SMT. JUDY MANSHANI 601, PREM ASHRAM OPP. SAHYADRI MANDIR 12 TH ROAD, KHAR (WEST) MUMBAI 400 052 PAN AEZP M9664B .. APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 9 (1)(3) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI 410 012 .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KETAN PANCHMIA REVENUE BY : SHRI G.N. MAKAWANA DATE OF HEARING 1 6 .0 7 .2015 DATE OF ORDER 31.07.2105 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TH E PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20 TH MARCH 2014 , PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3 0 , MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 10 . THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS : ' (A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT FOR NON SUBMISSION OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. SMT. JUDY MANSHANI 2 (B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) COMPLETELY IGNORED THE SUBM ISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS TO THE LEARNED CIT(A). (C) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION OF ` 11,70,600 BE DELETED. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED PR OPERTY FOR ` 30,10,600 , AS PER AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED FROM THE COPY OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES DURING THE YEAR: FLAT NO. DATE OF AGREEMENT DATE OF REGISTRATION AGREEMENT VALUE MARKET VALUE 1202 D 02.03.2009 17.03.2009 ` 15,59,200 ` 32,30,700 1203 D 02.03.2009 17.03.2009 ` 14,51,400 ` 30,12,900 ` 30,10,600 ` 62,43,600 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF ` 15,40,000, IN THE EARLIER YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE SELLER IN THE AGREEMENT. VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 5 TH DECEMBER 2011, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AND FURNISH THE SOURCE OF FUND FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY OF ` 30,12,900 . THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED ` 9,80,000, AS LOAN FROM HER SON FOR PURCHASING OF FLATS NO.1202 D AND 1203 D AT KANDIVALI, MUMBAI, AND ON A PERUSAL OF LOAN CONFIRMATION OF SHRI NAVIN MANSHANI, SON OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING SMT. JUDY MANSHANI 3 OFFICE R THAT THERE WAS AN OPENING BALANCE OF ` 6,80,000, AS ON 1 ST APRIL 2008, AND HENCE, ` 3 ,00,000, WAS RECEIVED FROM HER SON SHRI NAVIN MANSHANI, WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED FROM THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, TREATED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 11,70,600 ( ` 14,70,600 ` 3,00,000) AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 6 9 OF THE ACT, AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. 4. AGGRI EVED BY THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH WAS DISMISSED AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF ` 11,70,600, CLAIMED TO HAVE BORROWED FROM RELATIVES . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE ME, T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, PRODUCED A CHART SHOWING TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE TO THE BUILDER EKTA DEVELOPMENT CO., FOR ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY (FLATS NO .1202 D AND 1203 D) , KANDIVALI, MUMBAI . ON THIS BASIS, IT IS CONTENDED THAT PRIOR TO OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS OF ` 29,30,600, TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THESE PROPERTIES WHILE THE BALANCE OF ` 1,70,600, IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ` 1,70,600, WAS PAID DURING THE YEAR OUT OF THE COMPENSATION OF ` 3,25,000, RECEIVED FROM SMT. JUDY MANSHANI 4 TEHSILDAR, HUZUR, BHOPAL. THESE FACTS OF PAYMENT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF PURCHASE OF P ROPERTY EITHER IN THE EARLIER YEAR OR IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE NEEDS PROPER VERIFICATION. HE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE RELEVANT COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS. HE ACCORDINGLY PRAYED FOR RESTORING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . HE, HOWEVER, DID NOT OBJECT TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR RESTORING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF ` 31,01,200, MADE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THAT ` 29,30,600, PERTAINS TO THE EARLIER YEARS OR SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND ` 1,70,600 PERTAINS TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR RESTORING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NE CESSARY VERIFICATION ON THIS ASPECT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I FIND NO REASON TO NEGATE THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ACCORDINGLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO SMT. JUDY MANSHANI 5 ADJUDICATION AFTER VERIFICATION OF DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ACQUIRING THE PROPERTIES. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY . 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 31.07.2015 SD/ - G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 31.07.2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI