The ITO, Cochin V. Smt.T.N.Ambika, Ernakulam

ITA 442/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81409 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 442/COCH/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI CHANDRA PO OJARI (AM) I.T.A NO. 442/COCH/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) THE ITO, WD.3(1) VS SMT. T.N. AMBIKA RANGE-3, KOCHI 35/17629, MEGHA SOUTH JANATHA ROAD PALARIVATTOM PO ERNAKULAM 25 PAN : AGYPA5612J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.K. JOHN RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 02-12-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-12-2014 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL CHALLENGI NG THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, KOCHI DA TED 30-06-2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDG EMENT FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. IN SPITE OF THE RE CEIPT OF NOTICE, NO ONE 2 ITA NO. 442/COCH/2014 APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE LD.DR AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. SHRI K.K. JOHN, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR, NORTH PARAV UR, ERNAKULAM, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR A CON SIDERATION OF RS.57,57,000. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE STAMP PAPERS FOR A SUM OF RS.5,75,600 WAS PURCHASED BY THE PRESENT ASS ESSEE ON 19-04- 2008 IN HER NAME BUT THE DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED IN T HE NAMES OF SHRI N.G. MENON, SHRI ARUNKUMAR, SHRI SURESH B NAIR AND SMT. T.N. AMBIKA, THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE QUANTUM OF CONSIDERATION PAID BY EACH PERSON WAS NOT DESCRIBED IN THE SALE DEED. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HER SHARE WAS ONL Y RS. 15 LAKHS WHICH WAS DRAWN FROM M/S CONSET BUILDERS, A PARTNERSHIP C ONCERN. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT SHRI ARUNKUMAR CONTRIBUTED RS. 11 LAKHS, SHRI N.G. MENON CONTRIBUTED RS.15 LAKHS AND SHRI SURESH B NAIR CONTRIBUTED RS.16,57,0 00. WHILE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF SURESH B NAIR, THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAME WAS WITHDRAWN FROM SOUTH INDIAN BANK. HOWEVER , COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF SOUTH INDIAN BANK DOES NOT SHO W ANY WITHDRAWAL. DURING THE PERIOD 15-09-2006 TO 17-06-2009 SHRI SUR ESH B NAIR REMITTED A SUM OF RS.25 LAKHS TO M/S CONSET BUILDERS. AS PER THE INFORMATION 3 ITA NO. 442/COCH/2014 FURNISHED BY SOUTH INDIAN BANK, THE AMOUNT DEBITED TO THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SURESH B NAIR AND SMT. MOHANA SURES H DURING THE PERIOD 04-09-2007 TO 19-12-2007 DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS AMOU NT OF RS.16,57,000. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASING IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) FOU ND THAT IN RESPECT OF SHRI SURESH B NAIR, INVESTMENT OF RS.23,48,500 WAS WITHDRAWN FROM SOUTH INDIAN BANK, CHENNAMANGALAM BRANCH, SO THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, COPY OF THE STATEMENT DOES NOT SHOW ANY WITHDRAWAL, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.DR IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) DELETED T HE ADDITION OF RS. 23,48,500 ON THE GROUND THAT THE DETAILS FOR INVEST MENT WAS WITHDRAWAL FROM SOUTH INDIAN BANK, CHENNAMANGALAM BRANCH. THE LD.DR NOW CLAIMS THAT COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SOUTH INDIAN BANK DOE S NOT SHOW ANY WITHDRAWAL. THE LD.DR HAS FILED COPIES OF THE STAT EMENTS OF SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. FROM THE STATEMENT FILED IT APPEARS THAT THE FUNDS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM NRE ACCOUNT TO DOMESTIC ACCOUNT. PRIMA FACIE THERE IS NO WITHDRAWAL OF CASH. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED AS TO WHETHER SHRI SURESH B NAIR HAS CONTRIBUTED TO RS. 23,48,500 AS CLAIMED OR THE ASSESSEE 4 ITA NO. 442/COCH/2014 CONTRIBUTED THE SAME. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE MATERIAL AVAILA BLE ON RECORD AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.23,48,500 IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE TH E SAME IN THE LIGHT OF RECORDS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 05 TH DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 05 TH DECEMBER, 2014 PK/- COPY TO: 1. SMT. T.N. AMBIKA, 35/17629, MEGHA, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM PO, ERNAKULAM 25 2. THE ITO, WD.3(1), RANGE-3, KOCHI 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-II, KOCHI 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH