AARTI JAGMOHAN MEHTA, MUMBAI V. ITO RG 20(1)-1, MUMBAI

ITA 3805/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79032 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: K R RASTOGI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI . .. . . . . . , !' !' !' !' # # # # $## $## $## $## #% #% #% #% , !' !' !' !' & & & & BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . : . : . : . : 3805 3805 3805 3805/ // / / // / 2011, - % #.% 2002-03 ITA NO. : 3805/MUM/2011, AY 2002-03 AARTI JAGMOHAN MEHTA, 605-A, BREEZE, 3 RD CROSS LANE, LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI '/ .: PAN: AABON 7959 D VS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER -20(1) (1), MUMBAI -400 020 /0 (APPELLANT) 12/0 (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K R RASTOGI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A R NINAWE -#34 /DATE OF HEARING : 17-06-2014 56. 34/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-06-2014 ! 7 ! 7 ! 7 ! 7 O R D E R $## $## $## $## #% #% #% #% , . . . . . .. . PER VIVEK VARMA, J.M. : THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A) 31, MUMBAI, DATED 23.02.2011, WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1.THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-31, MUMBAI ERRED ON FACTS AN D IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS BASED ON THE AFFIDAVIT, INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT AFFIDAVIT IS DA TED 01.04.2004 WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT FOR PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2.THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,50 ,000.00 BEING INVESTMENT IN PLOT NO. 1 DEVGHAR JAMBHULNE, PUNE, I NSPITE OF THE FACT THAT TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 2,00,000.00 WHICH W AS PAID THROUGH CHEQUE ON 20.01.2002 WHICH IS DULY VERIFIABLE FROM THE BANK STATEMENT AND AGREEMENT TO SALE. 3.THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000.00 ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK D URING THE YEAR, INSPITE OF THE FACT ONLY RS. 1,70,000.00 HAS BEEN DE POSITED AS CASH IN THE BANK OUT OF THE SAVINGS AND WITHDRAWALS FROM BA NK. 4.THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000.00 ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAW ALS, WHICH IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 5.THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED ARE HIGHLY EXCESSIVE, CONT RARY TO THE FACTS, PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WITHOUT CONSIDERIN G THE DETAILS SUBMISSIONS, EVIDENCES, FILED. AARTI JAGMOHAN MEHTA ITA 3805/MUM/2011 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT GR OUND NO. 1 IS NOT PRESSED AS THE DR DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION THERET O, THE GROUND IS REJECTED. 3. GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3 PERTAIN TO SUSTAINING OF RS. 4 ,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND RS. 1,70,000/- ON ACCOUN T OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A LADY, ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN VA RIOUS POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES. 5. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE PU RCHASED A PLOT OF LAND IN DEOGHAR, JAMBHULNE, DISTT. PUNE, WHOSE VALUE AS PER AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS AT RS. 4,50,000/-. BUT IN THE AGREEMENT ITSELF IT WAS MENTIONED, WHEEAS THE VENDOR HAS PROPOSED TO SELL THE SCHEDULE D PLOT NO. 1 MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 21,600 SQ. FT. ACCORDING TO NEW COUNTER SURVEY MAP. WHEREAS THE VENDEE HAS OFFERED TO PURCHASE THE ABOVE MENTIONED PLOT NO. 1 BEARING PASSBOOK NO. 586 MORE FULLY DESC RIBED IN THE SCHEDULE OF THIS AGREEMENT FOR RS. 4,50,000/- (RUPEE S FOUR LAKH FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY). WHEREAS OUT OF THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AGREED UP ON BY THE VENDEE HAS TODAY DONE THE FULL & FINAL PAYMENT OF RS . 2,00,000/- (AS A SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR YOGA & MEDITATION) BY CHE QUE NO. 027807 DTD. 20/01/2002 RECEIPT NO. 2175. DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF (M/S HAPPY ESTATES (PVT LTD) WHICH THE VENDOR ADMITS AND ACKNOW LEDGES. WHEREBY, THE COST TO THE ASSESSEE CAME TO BE RS. 2, 00,000/-. 6 THIS FACT, WHEN PUT BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S, DID NOT IMPRESS THEM AND THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 ,50,000. 7. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AGREEMENT TALKS OF FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT OF RS. 2,00,000/- TO BE GIVEN TO HAPPY ESTA TES PVT. LTD. THERE COULD BE NO REASON FOR A DEEMED ADDITION. 8. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS AND HAVE PERUSED THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT AARTI JAGMOHAN MEHTA ITA 3805/MUM/2011 3 THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACTUM OF AGREEMENT OF S ALE (APB 30 TO 36), WHEREIN THE VENDOR WAS PREPARED TO SELL THE DEMISED PLOT OF LAND AT A DISCOUNTED RATE, AS MENTIONED IN THE PRE PARA, MENT IONING EVEN THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT, WAS PROVIDED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES . THOUGH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE TRIED TO CULL OUT EXTENSIVE DETAIL S FROM THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, GIVING PRO PERTY DETAILS, WE STILL DO NOT FIND THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TOOK ANY STEP S TO NEGATE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO PROVE THAT THE CO NTENTS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WERE AN EYE WASH OR INCORRECT OR MISLEADING. 10. IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION T HAT THOUGH THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DID MENTION THE VALUE OF PLOT TO BE RS. 4,50,000/-, BUT BECAUSE OF CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS, THE DEAL WAS STU CK AT RS. 2,00,000/-, WHICH WAS PAID, AS MENTIONED THEREIN. IN SUCH A CAS E, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ERRED TO HAVE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 AND, AS A CONSEQUENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 11. GROUND NO. 2 IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 12. GROUND NO. 3 PERTAINS TO CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 1 ,70,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN BANK WERE ONLY FROM THE SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS, THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 13. AFTER HEARING THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES , WE FIND THAT THE AR HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY CASE/ARGUMENT, WHICH COULD LEND SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE, THEREFORE, SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 1,70,000/-. 15. GROUND NO. 3, IS THEREFORE, REJECTED. AARTI JAGMOHAN MEHTA ITA 3805/MUM/2011 4 16. GROUND NO. 4 PERTAINS TO LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAW ALS, WHEREIN, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE MADE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/-. 17. SINCE NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS GROUND AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/-, WE SUSTA IN THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 18. GROUND NO. 5 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JUNE, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( . .. . . . . . ) ($## #% $## #% $## #% $## #%) !' !' !' !' !' !' !' !' (P.M. JAGTAP) (VIVEK VARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 20 TH JUNE, 2014 1/ COPY TO:- 1) /0/ THE APPELLANT. 2) 12/0/ THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-31, MUMBAI. 4) : 20 /CIT- 20 , MUMBAI / THE CIT-20, MUMBAI. 5) $#;1- , , THE D.R. A BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) <%= COPY TO GUARD FILE. ! 7- / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / [ >/ ? , DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *AB?- #.-. * CHAVAN, SR. PS