THE ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI V. M/S. SUKHMINDER S.GILL, MUMBAI

ITA 3733/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7472 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MADHUK
• Section: 143(3); 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI R.V.EASWAR, SR.VP AND SHRI R.K. PAND A, AM I.T.A. NO.3733/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20(3), R.NO.506, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400 012. VS. SHRI SUKHMINDER S.GILL, B-401, PANORAMA, OFF SEVEN BUNGALOWS, VERSOVA, ANDHERI(W), MUMBAI-400 061. PAN:ANIPG8976G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & CROSS OBJECTION NO.177/2 008 (ARISING OUT OF ITA. NO.373 3/MUM/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000) SHRI SUKHMINDER S.GILL, B-401, PANORAMA, OFF SEVEN BUNGALOWS, VERSOVA, ANDHERI(W), MUMBAI-400 061. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20(3), R.NO.506, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400 012. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MR. S.K.MADHUK, DR ASSESSEE BY : MR.VIJAY MEHTA O R D E R PER R.V.EASWAR, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT: THE APPEAL IS BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS BY THE ASSESS EE. THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE APPEAL & THE CROSS OBJECTION AR ISE OUT OF ASSESSMENT MADE ON HIM UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT BY ORDER DATED 11.12.2006. DEPARTMENTS APPEAL:- 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,70,265/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER REPRESENTING DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS HELD IN THE NAME OF ITA NO.3733/M/08 & CO NO.177/M/08 2 THE ASSESSEES WIFE. THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS APPREHENDED BY THE NARCOTICS BUREAU AN D WAS FOUND TO HAVE EARNED INCOME FROM TRAFFICKING OF DRU GS AND THIS INCOME IS REFLECTED BY THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AC COUNT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE. BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR AS HE WAS IN JAIL AND HIS WIFE WHO APPEARED BEFORE HIM STATED THAT ALL THE PROPERTIES STOOD IN HER NAME AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY PROPERTIES I N HIS NAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,70,265/- DEPOSITED IN THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE MRS. NANDA S.GILL. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEES WIFE, THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT IN HDFC BANK, VERSOVA B RANCH HAD BEEN VERIFIED AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PEAK OF THE DEPOSITS SHOULD BE ADDED AS HER INCOME. ACCORDINGLY AN AMOU NT OF RS.50,000/- WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN ADDED IN HER ASS ESSMENT FOR THE SAME YEAR UNDER SECTION 69A. THE CIT(A) AC CORDINGLY HELD THAT SINCE THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WE RE FOUND TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE, NO ADDITION C AN BE MADE IN THE ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITIO N OF RS.7,70,265/- WAS DELETED. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) SINCE THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN CONSIDER ED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE AND ADDITION HAS ALSO BEEN MADE IN HER ASSESSMENT ON THAT BASIS. THERE IS NO CASE F OR INCLUDING THE SAME INCOME AGAIN IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS WHIC H WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND. 3. THE SECOND GROUND RELATES TO THE ADDITION FOR ES TIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATE D THE SAME AT RS.1,80,000/- WHICH WAS REDUCED BY THE CIT(A) TO ITA NO.3733/M/08 & CO NO.177/M/08 3 RS.1,00,000/-. WHILE REDUCING THE ADDITION, THE CIT (A) HAS CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE, THE SIZE OF THEIR FAMILY AND THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDIT URE AND INCOME EARNED BY THEM AND AFTER DOING SO HAS THOUGH T IT FIT TO REDUCE THE ADDITION TO RS.1 LAKH THEREBY GIVING A R ELIEF OF RS.80,000/-. WE SEE NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE W ITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) WHICH IS AFFIRMED. THE SECO ND GROUND IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE DIS MISSED AS ALSO THE APPEAL. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION:- 4. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIO NED THE BEST JUDGEMENT, ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 144 R EAD WITH SECTION 147, AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND HAS ALSO QUESTIONED THE ADDITION OF RS.65,205/- BEING THE DEPOSIT IN TH E HDFC BANK ACCOUNT HELD BY THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER AND THE ES TIMATE OF THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.1 LAKH BY THE CIT(A). AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE STATED THAT HIS CLIENT DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THE CROSS O BJECTION. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJ ECTION ARE DISMISSED. NO COSTS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) SD/- ( R.V.EASWAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED 19 TH MARCH , 2010. SOMU ITA NO.3733/M/08 & CO NO.177/M/08 4 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-20 MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT(A)-XXXII, MUMBAI 5. THE DR J BENCH /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI