Manjula M., Shimoga V. ITO, Shimoga

ITA 450/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9446 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A R VIVEK

Judgement Text

ITA.450/BANG/2014 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.450/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SMT. MANJULA M, CANARA BANK, S. M. CIRCLE, SHIMOGA .. APPELLANT PAN : AEWPM9590F V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, SHIMOGA .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. A. R. VIVEK, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI. BIPIN C. N, JCIT HEARD ON : 14.07.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 26.08.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE, ITS GRIEVANCE IS THAT CIT (A) SUSTAINED AN ADDITION OF RS.3,60,000/- DISREGARDING THE EXPLANATION FOR SOURCE OF MONEY. ITA.450/BANG/2014 PAGE - 2 02. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A SALARIED EMPL OYEE OF CANARA BANK HAD FILED HER RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.3,10,44 6/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO TH AT SHE HAD RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL ADVANCES FROM HER HUSBAND SHRI. K. M. D HARMAPPA, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE. ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN A SUM OF RS.6,75,000/- AS RECEIVED IN CASH FROM SHRI. K. M. DHARMAPPA WHICH W AS USED FOR INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EXCEPT FOR A SUM OF RS.3,15,000/- WHICH WAS PA ID BY SHRI. K. M. DHARMAPPA DIRECTLY, THE OTHER AMOUNTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS GIVEN BY SHRI. K. M. DHARMAPPA, COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. HE M ADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,60,000/-. 03. ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) DID NOT ME ET WITH ANY SUCCESS. ACCORDING TO HIM CASH WITHDRAWALS OF ASSESSEES HUS BAND FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY ASSESSEE AS SOURCE FOR ADVANCES GIVEN TO HER COULD NOT BE TALLIED. HE SUSTAINED THE ADDITIO N. 04. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SHRI. K. M . DHARMAPPA WAS HIMSELF A CLASS I GAZETTED OFFICER OF KARNATAKA GOV ERNMENT. ACCORDING TO HIM HE HAD SUFFICIENT SALARY TO GIVE A LOAN OF RS.6 ,75,000/-. ACCORDING TO ITA.450/BANG/2014 PAGE - 3 LD. AR, LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD TAKEN A VERY NARROW V IEW AND MADE AN ADDITION. 05. PER CONTRA LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 06. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT K. M. DHARMAPPA WAS SERVING AS A GAZE TTED OFFICER FOR LONG. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HERSELF A N OFFICER IN CANARA BANK. THE AMOUNT SHOWN BY ASSESSEE AS RECEIVED FROM HER H USBAND WAS ONLY RS.6,75,000/- WHICH WAS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND ALSO FOR SOME OTHER INVESTMENTS. IT IS NORMAL IN A FAMILY THAT CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS JOINTLY TAKEN UP BY HUSBAND AND WIFE EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY WILL BE IN THE NAME OF ONE. CONSIDERI NG THE SOCIAL STATUS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE LOAN OF RS.6,75,000/- CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM HER HUSBAND OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. I THEREFORE HAVE NO HESITAT ION IN DELETING THE ADDITION. ITA.450/BANG/2014 PAGE - 4 07. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR