Smt. Pramila Kumari, V. I.T.O.,

ITA 61/PAT/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59968 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K RASTOGI; RAKESH KUMAR S
• Keywords: Source of fund

Judgement Text

ITA NO61/PATNA/2011 SMT. PRAMILA KUMARI, PATNA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA BEFORE: SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 61 / PATNA / 20 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06 SMT. PRAMILA KUMARI PATNA VS. ITO WARD - 5(4) PATNA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AGZPK 2365F APPELLANT BY: SHRI A.K. RASTOGI & SHRI RAKESH KUMAR, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANJAY MUKHERJEE, D.R. DATE OF HEAR I NG: 20 .02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 .02.2012 ORDER PER B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005-06 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 15.2.2011 DISPUTING THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.4,65,701/- BEING THE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS PAYMENT OF PREMIUM OF BAJAJ ALLIANZ COMPANY. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID ACTUAL INSURANCE TO B AJAJ ALLIANZ COMPANY AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE OF RS.4,65,701/- BUT IN T HE RETURN, REBATE U/S 88 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT HAD BEEN CLAIMED ON TOTAL INVEST MENT OF RS.47,563/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN CAPITAL ACCOUNT OR BALANCE SHEET. ACCOR DINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.4,65,701/- AS ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT THE SAID PAYMENT OF PREMIUM OF RS.4,65,701/- HAD BEEN MADE IN CASH AND THE SAME WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD FAILED TO ES TABLISH THE SOURCE OF FUNDS REQUIRED IN THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT. HENCE, ASSESS EE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO61/PATNA/2011 SMT. PRAMILA KUMARI, PATNA 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. A.R. REFERRED PAGE 1 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES SPECIFICALLY STATED THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM OF RS.4,65,701/- AND THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN. HE FURTHER REFERRED PAGE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05 AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CASH IN HAND OF RS.6,35,529/- AND OUT OF WHICH THE SAID CASH PREMIUM OF RS.4,65,701/- WAS PAID. LD. A.R. S UBMITTED THAT A REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT BY LD. CIT(A) AND REFERRED PAGES 1 & 2 OF PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ADMITTED THAT BALANCE SHEET WAS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH INCOME-TAX R ETURN AND THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.4,65,701/- WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESS EE IN HER LIFE INSURANCE ACCOUNT TOWARDS PREMIUM OUT OF HER PAST SAVINGS LYI NG IN CASH. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE SAID REM AND REPORT AS THE SAME WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE ORDER BY LD. CIT(A). LD. D.R. DID NOT DISPUTE ABOVE FACTS SAVE AND EXCEPT RELYING ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TH E SUBMISSION OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES, WE OBSERVE THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET WITH THE RETURN AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE OUT OF HER PAST SAVINGS FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT O F PREMIUM OF RS.4,65,701/-. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, WE DELETE T HE SAID ADDITION OF RS.4,65,701/- BY ALLOWING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISPUTED INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT NO SUBMISSION WAS MA DE AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE, GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAH Y A ) ( B.R. MITTAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS PATNA, DATED 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 ITA NO61/PATNA/2011 SMT. PRAMILA KUMARI, PATNA 3 COPY TO 1 SMT. PRAMILA KUMARI, W/O SRI RABINDRA CHARAN YADAV, H/O SRI A.K. SINGH, E-117, S.K. PURI, PATNA. 2 ITO WARD - 5(4), PATNA 3 CIT, DHANBAD (JHARKHAND) 4 THE CIT (A) , DHANBAD (JHARKHAND) 5 THE DR, ITAT, DHANBAD 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA