Bimal Paul, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward -49(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 45/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48179 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTAM MONDAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S BANDYOPADHYAY
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

, . .. . . .. . , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH-SMC: KOLKATA ( ) . . , ,) [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] /I.T.A. NO. 45/KOL./2011 !'# !'# !'# !'# /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-2002 BIMAL PAUL, KOLKATA - VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4 9(4), (PAN : AJLPP 7371 F) KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. BANDYOPADHYAY, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GOUTAM MONDAL, SR. D.R. $% $% $% $% /O R D E R THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, KOLKATA DATED 27.08.2010 ON FOLLOWING GROUND :- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A.) WAS UNJUST FOR DENYING TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATIONS AND E VIDENCES PRODUCED IN SUBSTITUTING THE MISTAKE IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, ALLEGEDLY HOLDING THAT WHEN THE RETURN WAS SUBMITTE D AND ASSESSED UNDER SECTION. 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT THE INSTANC E OF HIS PREDECESSOR, SUCH EXPLANATION CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY HIM. THER EFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A.) BEING BI ASED AND UNLAWFUL SHOULD BE DELETED. 2. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PART IES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. I OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PLOT OF LAND ON 14.03.2000 AT HATIARA VILLAGE, MAUJA NO. 160-162 AN D 169 OF 24-PARGANAS, THANA - RAJARHAT VIDE TWO SALE DEEDS OF RS.10,000/- AND RS.1,40,000/ -. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, ASSESSEE FILED PHOTO COPIES OF DEED OF SALE FOR RS.2,00,000/-, WHICH RELATES TO TH E SAME PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 14.03.2000. HE ITA NO. 45/KOL./2011 2 HAS FURTHER STATED THAT FROM THE SALE DEED, IT APPE ARS THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD DURING NOVEMBER, 2000 FOR RS.2,00,000/- AND WHEREAS BALANC E-SHEET FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND 2001-02, THE SAID PROPERTY IS SHOWN AT RS.1,64,600/ - INCLUSIVE OF STAMP DUTY AND OTHER EXPENSES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS CONSIDERED THE SAID 2,00,000 RUPEES AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PRO PERTY DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,00,000/-, WHICH WAS NOT DISCL OSED BY ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001-02. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT THIS APPEAL IS ARIS ING OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE ACT. LD. AR SU BMITTED THAT THE SAID SALE DEED DOES NOT RELATE TO THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESESE ON 14.03.2000. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS SOLD FOR RS.2,00,000/-, IT WAS SOLD ON 13.12.2000 AND NOT IN NOVEMBER, 2000 AS STATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. HE REFERRED PA GES 40 TO 47 (ENGLISH TRANSLATION AT PAGES 48 TO 49) TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS SUBMISSION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED ON 06.08.1993 AS PER DEED OF PURCHASE OF LAND, COPY PL ACED AT PAGES 9 TO 17 (ENGLISH TRANSLATION AT PAGES 18-19) OF PAPER BOOK. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT D ETAILS OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS SOLD FOR RS.2,00,000/- MATCHES WITH THE SCHEDULE GIVEN IN TH E DEED OF PURCHASE I.E. ON 06.08.1993 AND DEED OF SALE DATED 13.12.2000. HE ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE ABOVE FACTS COULD NOT BE PLACED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PROPERTY WIT H THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AS SESSEE WILL PLACE ALL THE FACTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ABOVE SUBMISSION AND THE COPIES ON RELEVANT DOC UMENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL DOCUMENTS ARE ALREADY PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. LEARNED DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND ON PERUSAL OF TH E RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK (DETAILS OF WHICH ARE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE), I, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONSIDER IT PRUDENT TO RESTORE THIS MATTER TO ASSESSING OFFICER BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH A DIRECTION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WILL CONSIDER THE DETAILS, AS MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ITA NO. 45/KOL./2011 3 HIM AND MAKE THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER ACCORDINGLY HENCE, GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.06. 2011. SD/- [ B.R. MITTAL / . . ] JUDICIAL MEMBER / ] DATED : 15/ 06/ 2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI BIMAL PAUL, SUKANTA PALLY, JYANGRA, BAGUIATI, KOLKATA-59. 2. ITO, WARD-49(4), KOLKATA, 169, AJC BOSE ROAD, KOLKA TA-14. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- KOLK ATA 4 . CIT- , KOLKATA 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., KOLKATA. LAHA, SR. P.S.