Shri. N. Puttaraju, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 567/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0296 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

ITA.567/BANG/2014 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.567/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SHRI. N. PUTTARAJU, NO.1, 2 ND CROSS,OBAIAH LANE, AKKIPET CROSS, BENGALURU 560 053 .. APPELLANT PAN : AKQPP0241E V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. SHEETHAL BORKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI. S. SUNDAR RAJAN, JCIT (OSD) HEARD ON : 08.06.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 24.06.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : GRIEVANCE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS REG ARDING ADDITION OF RS.20,05,000/- MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT (A). 02. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, A PIGMY AGENT HAD FILED RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,05,326/-. AO HAD AIR INFO RMATION THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.20,63,210/- IN SYNDICATE BANK, BWSSB BRANCH, ITA.567/BANG/2014 PAGE - 2 BENGALURU ON 31.03.2006. EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE WAS SOUGHT ON THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE DEPOSIT. ASSESSEE THEREUPON PR ODUCED BEFORE THE AO A SALE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY HIM WITH ONE SHRI. M. SAT ISH, SMT. KAMALA AND SMT. BHAGYAMMA FOR SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY HIM AT BYATARAYANAPURA. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, PURSUANT TO THE SALE AGREEMENT , HE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS FROM SHRI. M. SATISH, RS.6 LAKHS FRO M SMT. KAMALAMMA AND RS.4 LAKHS FROM SMT. BHAGYAMMA. SMT. KAMALAMMA WAS THE MOTHER OF SHRI. M. SATISH AND SMT. BHAGTAMMA WAS HIS GRANDMOT HER. AFFIDAVITS WERE ALSO FILED EXCEPT FROM SMT. BHAGYAMMA WHO EXPI RED ON 21.07.2008. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED DEATH CERTIFICATE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. AO EXAMINED SHRI. M. SATISH AND SMT. KAMALAMMA AND THEY CONFIRMED THA T THEY HAD PAID THE SUMS TO THE ASSESSEE, BASED ON THE SALE AGREEMENT M ENTIONED ABOVE. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SALE COULD NOT GO THROUGH FOR MANY REASONS AND HAD TO PAY BACK THE AMOUNT IN A LATER YEAR. AO WAS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS. ACCORDING TO HIM , MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH. CONCERNED PARTIES WERE NO T RESOURCEFUL ENOUGH TO PAY SO MUCH MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE AO, ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACCOUNTED THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THESE PARTIES I N THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR. HE DISBELIEVED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 20,05,000/-. ITA.567/BANG/2014 PAGE - 3 03. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT (A). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ALL THE THREE PERSONS EXCE PT SMT. BHAGYAMMA HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE SALE AGREE MENT. FURTHER AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SMT. BHAGYAMMA COULD NOT APPEAR SINCE SHE WAS NO MORE. IN ANY CASE ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SALE AGREEM ENT BY ITSELF PROVED RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM SHRI. M. SATISH, SMT. KAMALAM MA AND SMT. BHAGYAMMA. HOWEVER, CIT (A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED BY T HE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM IN T HE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME DID NOT SHOW THE AD VANCES RECEIVED FROM THESE PARTIES FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY. THUS ACCOR DING TO CIT (A), VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE BELIEVED. FURTHER ACC ORDING TO CIT (A), ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE SUM OF RS.20,05,000/- WAS TRANSFERRED BY HIM TO WIFE SMT. SARASWATHI. THIS TRANSACTION WAS ALSO NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. HENCE HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 04. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR HAS FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 THROUGH WHICH HE PLE ADS FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE NATURE OF A GIFT DEED EX ECUTED BY SMT. LAKSHMIDEVIAMMA , MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE ALSO WANTS TO FILE A COPY OF THE RETURN FOR A. Y. 2007-08. AS PER THE L D. AR DURING THE COURSE ITA.567/BANG/2014 PAGE - 4 OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISE D BALANCE SHEET WHICH HAD PROPERTY REFLECTED THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM T HE THREE PARTIES FOR SALE OF THE LAND AND THE AMOUNTS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE T O HIS WIFE. ACCORDING TO HER, LOWER AUTHORITIES DISREGARDED THE REVISED BALA NCE SHEET, AND MADE THE ADDITION. 05. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COUL D NOT PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. ACCORDING TO HIM, PRO VING GENUINENESS ALONE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ACCEPTING A CREDIT. FURTHER AS PER THE LD. DR THE DOCUMENTS NOW SOUGHT TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY REASON WHY THESE DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE SO PRODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 06. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. UNDISPUTEDLY THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SHRI. M. SATISH, SMT. KAMALAMMA AND SMT. BHAGYAMMA FOR SALE OF LAND OWNED BY HIM. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A LTOGETHER RS.20 LAKHS FROM THESE THREE PERSONS. LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE N OT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THIS AGREEMENT. SHRI. SATISH AND SM T. KAMALAMMA HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE FACT OF HA VING ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT AND HAVING PAID THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE . ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ITA.567/BANG/2014 PAGE - 5 PRODUCED DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SMT. BHAGYAMMA. IT W AS NOT A OF LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE PERSONS. ASSESSEE WAS T RYING TO SELL A PIECE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY HIM FOR WHICH HE RECEIVED THESE S UMS AS ADVANCE. GENUINENESS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT BEEN DOUB TED. QUESTION OF EXPLAINING THE CREDIT WORTHINESS WOULD COME ONLY IF A PARTY APPEARS AS A CREDITOR. THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE. ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ADVANCE FOR SELLING HIS PROPERTY AND THE PERSONS HAD ADVANCED T HE MONEY FOR PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. THEY WERE NOT CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WAS NO T REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTI ES. HE HAD PRODUCED EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THE TRANSACTI ONS. ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED BALANCE-SHEET DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS REFLECTING THESE TRANSACTIONS. IT COULD BE AN INST ANCE OF GENUINE MISTAKE THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW THE ABOVE IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY HER ALONG WITH THE RETURN. HOWEVER, IN MY OPINION, THIS WOUL D NOT BE A REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE SALE AGREEMENT AND THE MONEY RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF THE SALE AGREEMENT. IN MY OPINION, ASSES SEE HAD PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF RS.20,05, 000/-. ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ADDITION IS DELETED. IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES THE QUESTION OF ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT ARISE. ITA.567/BANG/2014 PAGE - 6 07. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 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