The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji., Panaji V. Smt. Vrinda P. Kittur, Panaji

ITA 341/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2108 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K MEHBOOB ALI KHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SIRNIVAS NAYAK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Tax effect
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 340 & 341 /P A N/201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 20 11 - 1 2 ) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI - GOA VS. 1) SHRI PRAKASH V. KITTUR , C - 1, SPARSHA L A MARVEL COLONY, NEAR DIO, DONA PAULA, GOA. 2) PAN NO. AAZPV 6075 B SMT. VRINDA P. KITTUR, C - 1, SPARSHA LA MARVEL COLONY, NEAR DIO, DONA PAULA, GOA. PAN NO. ADPPK 9982 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT S ) C.O.NOS. 68 & 69/PAN/2015 ( ITA NO S . 340 & 341 /P A N/201 5) (ASST. YEAR S : 20 11 - 1 2 ) 1) SHRI PRAKASH V. KITTUR, C - 1, SPARSHA LA MARVEL COLONY, NEAR DIO, DONA PAULA, GOA. VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI - GOA 2) PAN NO. AAZPV 6075 B SMT. VRINDA P. KITTUR, C - 1, SPARSHA LA MARVEL COLONY, NEAR DIO, DONA PAULA, GOA. PAN NO.ADPPK 9982 M (APPELLANT S ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE S BY : SHRI SIRNIVAS NAYAK C A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K. MEHBOOB ALI KHAN - D R DATE OF HEARING : 27 / 0 4 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 7 / 0 4 /201 6 . 2 ITA NO S . 340 & 342 /P A N/201 5 C.O.NOS. 68 & 69/PAN/2015 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE THE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, PANAJI , EACH DATED 08/06/2015 . 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY UNDER SEC. 69A OF 4,42,491/ - AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE OF 9,60,941/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GHANSEM PROPERTY . THUS, THE TOTAL RELIEF GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY DELETING THE ADDITIONS , WORKS OUT TO 14,03,432/ - , THUS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRANTED RELIEF OF 7,01,716/ - TO PRAKAKSH V. KITTUR AND 7,01,716/ - TO HIS WIFE SMT. VRINDA P. KITTUR AND THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS BELOW 10 LAC AND IN VIEW OF THE CB DT CIRCULAR 21/2015 , DATED 10/12/2015, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE . 3 . THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREED TO THE SAME . HENCE, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4 . IN THE CROSS OBJE C TIONS, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF 10, 0 8,509/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ALL THE DETAILS IN REGARD TO THE JEWELLERY P URCHASE WERE PROVIDED TO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, GOLD JEWELLERY W E IGHING 1819.790 GMS. 3 ITA NO S . 340 & 342 /P A N/201 5 C.O.NOS. 68 & 69/PAN/2015 W AS FOUND AND THE SAME WAS VALUED AT 32,21,755/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS A S KED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THIS JEWELLERY WAS NEITHER DISCLOSED IN THE I NCOME TAX RETURN NOR THE WE ALTH TAX RETURN . MR. PRAKASH KITTUR WAS MARRIED TO MS.VRINDA KITTUR AND H AS T W O UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS. STAT E MENT OF SHRI PRAKASH KITTUR WAS RECORDED ON OATH DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE SEARCH PARTY GAVE A CREDIT FOR 1000 GRMS . O F GOLD JEWELLERY AND ASKED QUESTION S ABOUT BALANCE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY OF 819.790 GRMS . SHRI PRAKASH KITTUR GAVE REPLY , WHICH WAS NOT SPECIFIC , AND FINALLY DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF 14,51,000 / - AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. 6 . ON APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT MOST OF THE JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED DURING MARRIAGE AND AS GIFTS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT REPLY WAS NOT SPECIF IC AND CLEARLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT . HE NOTED THAT , IN OUR COUNTRY , THERE IS A TRADITION OF GIFTS DURING THE BIRTH OF GIRL CHILD AND AUSPICIOUS OCCASIONS AND TH AT IS WHY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED CREDIT FOR 1000 GRMS. O F GOLD JEWELLERY AND THAT 1000 GRMS . HAS BEEN CALCULATED ON THE BASIS TH A T 500 GRAMS . F OR MARRIED WOMEN AND 250 GRMS. F OR UNMARRIED GIRL CHILD . THERE ARE TWO DAUGHTERS TO MR. KITTUR AND THAT IS HOW 1 KG. HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT , WHILE CALCULATING THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE GOLD ALLOWED TO MR. PRAKASH KITTUR . DURING HIS MARRIAGE, MR. KITTUR ALSO MUST HAVE RECEIVED SOME GOLD ORNAMENTS AS PER THE TRADITION . THEREFORE, HE FURTHER ALLOWED CREDIT FOR 250 GRMS. OF GOLD IN THE HANDS OF MR. PRAKASH KITTUR AND TREATED JEWELLERY OF 1250 GRMS. OF GOLD AS EXPLAINED AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY OF 569. 790 GRMS . AS UNEXPLAINED AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION FOR 10,08,509/ - . IN THIS WAY, HE SUSTAINED ADDITION OF 5,04,505/ - , EACH IN THE HANDS OF SHRI PRAKASH V. KITTUR AND HIS WIFE SMT. VRINDA P. KITTUR. 4 ITA NO S . 340 & 342 /P A N/201 5 C.O.NOS. 68 & 69/PAN/2015 7 . THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO.12 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BESIDES RECEIVING THE GOLD JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AS BY WAY OF GIFTS AND ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS ALSO MADE PURCHASES OF JEWELLERY THROUGH CREDIT CARD , TOTALLING TO 613.08 GRMS. VALUED AT 13,35,963/ - DURING THE PERIOD 25/09/2007 TO 03/04/2010. IT WAS, THEREFORE, HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY OF 569.790 GRMS IS ALSO COVERED BY THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND, HENCE, NO ADDITION WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ADDITION OF 10,08,509/ - SHOULD BE DELETED. 8 . THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE . 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES OF GOLD JEWELLERY DURING THE PERIOD 25/09/2007 TO 03/04/2010, WEIGH ING 613.308 GRMS. FOR 13,35,963/ - , THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE FILED AT PAGE NO. 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE SAME WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). NO ADVERSE MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER VERIFYING THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY 569.790 GRMS . VALUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 10,08,509/ - , THE ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE IS ALSO EXPLAINED AND, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF 10,08,509/ - BEING 5,04,505/ - , EACH IN THE HANDS OF SHRI PRAKASH V. KITTUR AND HIS WIFE SMT. VRINDA P. KITTUR AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE . 5 ITA NO S . 340 & 342 /P A N/201 5 C.O.NOS. 68 & 69/PAN/2015 10 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON WEDNESDAY , THE 2 7 TH DAY OF APRIL , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 2 7 TH APRIL, 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI .