REKHA KIRTIKUMAR SHAH, MUMBAI V. ITO 23(3)2, MUMBAI

ITA 4511/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4052 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C P PATNAIK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC , BENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI R. K. GUPTA , JM ITA NO. 4511 / MUM/ 20 1 3 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 6 - 0 7 ) REKHA K. SHAH, D/205, SHEETAL APARTMENT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, JAIN MANDIR ROAD, MULUND (W), MUMBAI - 400 080 VS. ITO 23 (3)( 2 ), MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. : A NHPS 7733 C ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C.P.PATNAIK DATE OF HEARING : 9 TH JULY , 201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 TH JULY , 2013 O R D E R TH IS APPEAL H AS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15 - 3 - 2013 , PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - 34 , MUMBAI RELA TING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 0 7 . 2 . THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES UND ER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT . 3 . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS AN AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS.3 LACS IN SHARES OF M/S EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO ITA NO. 45 11 /20 1 3 2 FURNISH THE SOURCES FOR THE ABOVE INVESTMENT WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS. 1 LAKHS BY WAY OF ONE APPLICATION IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED COMPANY, WHEREAS THE OTHER TWO APPLICATIONS WERE MADE BY MS. MEGHNA K. SHAH AND SHRI RUSHABH K. SHAH FOR RS. 1 LAKH EACH IN THE ABOVE COMPANY. THE AO HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE COPY OF BANK PASSBOOK/STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK LTD. WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH. NO EVIDENCE OR CONFIRMATION WAS FILED IN RESPECT TO TH E CLAIM THAT THE TWO APPLICATIONS ARE MADE BY MS. MEGHNA K. SHAH AND SHRI RUSHABH K. SHAH FOR RS.1 LAKH EACH IN THE ABOVE COMPANY . ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THESE TWO PERSONS, HOWEVER, WRONGLY THE PAN NUMBER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED. LEARNED CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 LAKHS. 5 . AFTER CON SIDERING THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CIT(A) , I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO GIVE A FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICATIONS ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION FROM THE TWO PERSONS I.E MS. MEGHNA K . SHAH AND SHRI RUSHABH K. SHAH, WHO APPLIED SHARE OF THE SAID COMPANY FOR A SUM OF RS. 1 LAKH EACH. ONUS LAYS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ITA NO. 45 11 /20 1 3 3 TWO PERSONS I.E. MS. MEGHNA K. SHAH AND SHRI RUSHABH K. SHAH, THEN OF COURSE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE PROPER DETAILS, THEREFORE, TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RE MAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ORDER AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF JU LY .2013 SD/ - ( ) ( R.K.GUPTA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 24/07 / 2013 /PKM , PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A) , MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI