SAGUNA SUKTHANKAR, MUMBAI V. ITO-16(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6055/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79461 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH L PATHEDE
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1); 69; 144

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI H.L. KARWA, HONBLE PRESIDENT AND P.M . JAGTAP, AM .. , .. , ./ I.T.A. NO.6055 /MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 MRS. SAGUNA A. SUKTHANKAR, ATMARAM NIWAS, BANGAGANGA ROAD, WALKESHWAR, MUMBAI 400 006. / VS. I.T.O. 1 6 (2), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : ANQPS1590Q ( ! / APPELLANT ) .. ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) A PPELLANT BY NONE R E SPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAKASH L. PATHEDE ' ( / DATE OF HEARING : 14-07-2014 ' ( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-07-2014 [ / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : .. , THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) -27, MUMBAI DATED 25-4-2011 WHEREBY HE UPHEL D THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 37,50,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN BIRLA AND SBI MUTUAL FUNDS TREATING THE SAM E AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L WHO FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 31-6-200 6 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME ITA 6055/M/11 2 OF RS. 2,29,990/- WHICH MAINLY COMPRISED OF INTERES T ON FIXED DEPOSIT. THE SAID RETURN WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE A.O., THE ASSES SEE HAD MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 37,50,000/- IN BIRLA AND SBI MUTU AL FUNDS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE THEREFORE ISSUED NOTICES U /S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAID INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN BIRLA AND SBI M UTUAL FUNDS, THE A.O. MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 37,50,000/- TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAID INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT VIDE AN ORDER DTD. 24-12-2008. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 144 OF THE ACT, APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND A WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALONG W ITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN B IRLA AND SBI MUTUAL FUNDS. THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FORWARDED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE A.O. FOR HIS COMMENTS. AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE A.O. FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT ON 30 TH JUNE, 2010 OFFERING SUCH COMMENTS. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE SAID REMAND REPORT FROM THE A. O., THE LD. CIT(A) SOUGHT TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER HER CO UNTER COMMENTS THEREON. AS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, T HERE WAS HOWEVER NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE TO THE NOTICES IS SUED BY HIM FIXING THE HEARING FROM TO TIME. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE PRO CEEDED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. PA SSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 37,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA 6055/M/11 3 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, NONE HAS APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE IS BEING DISPOSED OF EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. D.R. AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . IT IS OBSER VED THAT AFTER DISCUSSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TAKING NOTE OF THE WRITTEN SU BMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE A.O., TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FINALLY VIDE PARA 7 OF H IS IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT. FURTHER I H AVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE APPELLANTS NON-CO-OPERATION BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANTS ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NO LONGER INTERES TED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS BROUGHT O N RECO5RD BY THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT AND ALSO FOR WANT OF PROSECUTI ON OF APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT, I HEREBY DISMISS THE APPEAL. AS IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) REPRODUCED ABOVE, HE HAS DISMISSED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE MAINLY FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS REALLY NO DECISION RENDERED BY HIM ON THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE SAID APPEAL RELATING TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE F ILED BEFORE HIM BY AN ORDER IN WRITING STATING THEREIN THE POINTS FOR DETERMINA TION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR THE SAID DECISION. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), IN OUR OPINION, DOES NOT SATISFY THESE REQU IREMENTS. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO H IM FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH ON MERIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF TH E LD. CIT(A) AND RENDER ALL ITA 6055/M/11 4 THE POSSIBLE COOPERATION IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE LD. CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EXPEDITIOUSLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH JULY, 2014. ' . / 0 18-7-2014 ' SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (P.M. JAGTAP ) / PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 0 DATED 18=07=2014 [ .B../ RK , SR. PS ' #%& '& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. C () / THE CIT(A)27, MUMBAI 4. C / CIT CITY 16, MUMBAI 5. F 'BBH , ( H , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, #F 'B //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI