ITO 20(2)(2), MUMBAI V. MAGANLAL D. DAVDA, HUF, MUMBAI

ITA 5475/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5043 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R M TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: NATWAR G THAKRAR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.5475/MUM/2009 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P M JAGTAP, AM & SHRI R S PADVEKAR, JM ITA NO. 5475/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(2), MUMBAI VS SHRI MAGANLAL D DAVDA, HUF 302 ACME PLAZA ANDHERI - KURLA ROAD OPP SANGAM TALKIES MUMBAI 59 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN AADHM2006B ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NATWAR G THAKRAR REVENUE BY: SHRI R M TIWARI O R D E R PER R S PADVEKAR: IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)-XX, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 DATED 15.7.2009. 2 THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GRO UNDS: I) THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` ` 10,00,000/- MADE U/S 69 OF THE I T ACT ON THE BASIS OF REMAND R EPORT. II) THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDING HAD HIGHLIGHTED CERTAIN POINTS AND RELEVANT DETAILS WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE LOOKED INTO AND ADJUDICATED UPON. 2 ITA NO.5475/MUM/2009 3 THE FACTS WHICH REVEAL FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HUF. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS M ADE INVESTMENT OF ` 10 LACS IN THE BOND OF STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF IN DIA (SHCIL), BARODA ON 2.7.204 AND THE SAME WAS ON THE SINGLE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF ` 10 LACS BY GIVING THE REASON THAT NO DETAILS ARE FURNISHED TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF INVES TMENT. 3.1 IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U /S 144 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO DE LETED THE SAME AFTER VERIFYING THE CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BANK. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER: 3.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT O RDER, REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO PERUSED THE DETAI LS AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE AR AS MENTIONED ABOVE. FROM THE DE TAILS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOVERNMENT BONDS THROUGH S TOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA AS ON 2.7.2004 ARE PROPERLY EX PLAINED. EVIDENCES FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF APPEAL, I.E. VARIOUS LED GER ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS OF SHRI MANGANLAL M DAVDA, INDIV IDUAL, SHRI KASHYAP M SHAH (HIS SON) AND THE RELEVANT ACCOUNT S TATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT DULY ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF BONDS TO THE FUNDS TRANSFER RED BY SHRI KASHYAP M DAVDA FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE SAME IS DULY CONFIRMED BY THE CONCERNED PARTIES. IN BRIEF, IT IS NOTED THAT A SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS IS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SHRI. MANGANLAL DADV A, INDIVIDUAL ON 2.7.2009 WHICH WERE USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF BONDS BY SHRI MANGANLAL DAVDA (INDIVIDUAL) IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT HUF BEI NG KARTA OF THE HUF, INSTEAD OF DIRECTLY CREDITING THE SAME INTO TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE SOURCE OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE BONDS ARE FOUND TO BE SOURCED OUT OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY SHRI 3 ITA NO.5475/MUM/2009 KASHYAP M DAVDA FROM HIS PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT MAIN TAINED WITH ICICI BANK LTD BARODA AND THE SOURCE OF THE SAID FU ND GIVEN BY SHRI KASHYAP M DAVDA IS FOUND TO BE OUT OF THE REDEMPTIO N OF J M MUTAL FUND. ACCORDINGLY, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE, SINCE T HE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE BONDS IS EXPLAINED , THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD IS DIR ECTED TO BE DELETED. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE US. 4 WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RE LEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE PROOF BY WAY OF CERTIFICATE FROM STOCK HOLDING CORP ORATION OF INDIA LTD (P/B- 6) IN WHICH THE DETAILS OF THE CHEQUE NO., DA TE AND THE AMOUNT ARE MENTIONED. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE SAID CHEQUE WA S ISSUED FROM ICICI BANK AND THE BANK HAS GIVEN A CERTIFICATE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS INVESTED THE AMOUNT INTO THE BONDS ( P/B - 7). IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE SOURCE AND THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED TH E ADDITION. WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE; ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IS CONFIRME D. 5 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 27 TH , DAY OF AUG 2010. SD/- SD/- ( P M JAGTAP ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R S PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 27 TH , AUG 2010 RAJ* 4 ITA NO.5475/MUM/2009 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI