Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow V. Shri Naushad Ahmad, Lucknow

ITA 348/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4401 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.348/LKW/15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.348/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW. VS. SHRI NAUSHAD AHMAD, 4/202, VISHAL KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AALPA0795P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-III, LUCKNOW DATED 31/01/2015. 2. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOING TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS RETURNED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.75,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID INCOME TO BE AN INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN THE GARB OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE LAND HOL DING OR THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE WENT I N APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AND FILED COPY OF KHATA KHATAUNI ISSUED BY STATE GO VERNMENT WHICH APPELLANT BY DR. A. K. SINGH, CIT, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI H. P. SINGH, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 26/04/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25 / 05 /2016 I.T.A. NO.348/LKW/15 2 CONFIRMED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AN D IN VIEW OF THIS THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. LEARNED D. R. EVEN TH OUGH VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WHICH MAY PROVE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT OWNED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAS NOT CARRIED OUT THE AGRIC ULTURAL ACTIVITIES. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVEN UE. 4. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.50 LAC ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ADDITION ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT A CERTIFICATE FROM A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS FOUND IN RESPECT OF MOVABL E AND IMMOVABLE ASSETS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. UNDER S ERIAL NUMBER NO. 10, THIS CERTIFICATE HAS SHOWN GOLD AND JEWELLERY AMOUN TING TO RS.50 LAC. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE SOURCE, THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS CERTIFICATE WAS GOT PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR OBTAINING THE USA VISA AND AS FAR AS INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY IS CO NCERNED THE SAME ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT ENCLOSED THERE IN. THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, AS STATED IN THE CERTIFIC ATE, IS THE APPROXIMATE VALUE AND NOT THE COST THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY RELEVANCE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACCEPT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE JEWELL ERY AT RS.50 LAC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.50 LAC U/ S 69A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AND SUBMI TTED THAT THE TOTAL JEWELLERY WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH, AS PER THE PANCHNAMA, WAS RS.13,40,973/- WEIGHING 688 GMS AND I.E. THE JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE CIT(A) IN VIEW OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11/05/94 BY WHICH J EWELLERY UPTO 500 GMS. FOR EACH MARRIED LADY, 250 GRMS FOR EACH UNMAR RIED LADY AND 100 GMS. FOR EACH MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY IS TREATED AS EX PLAINED AND DELETED THE ADDITION. THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH VEH EMENTLY RELIED ON THE I.T.A. NO.348/LKW/15 3 ORDER OF CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUBMIT BEFORE US THE FAMILY CHART OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, ONLY THE NAME OF TWO FAMILY M EMBERS I.E. THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WAS SUBMITTED. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11/05/94 THE ASSESSEE CA N HOLD 100 GMS. OF JEWELLERY AND HIS WIFE CAN HOLD 500 GMS AS EXPLAINE D JEWELLERY. SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TOTAL JEWELLERY RECOVERED WAS 688 GMS., IN VIEW OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11/05/94, ONLY 600 GMS CAN BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF C IT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT O F MARKET VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY FOR 88 GMS. THUS, THE GROUND TAKEN BY TH E REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/05/2016) SD/. SD/. ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( P. K. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:25/05/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR