ROHAN R WALVEKAR, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 18(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6599/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4646 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R BHOOPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH VAGHASIYA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) I.T.A. NO. 6599 /MUM/ 201 8 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 6 - 0 7 ) ROHAN R. WALVEKAR 62, SURAIYA APARTMENT SIR POCHKHANWALA ROAD WORLI, MUMBAI - 400 025. PAN : AAAPW8502B V S . ITO - 18(3)(2) MUMBAI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) I.T.A. NO. 6 600 /MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07) APARNA R. WALVEKAR 62, SURAIYA APARTMENT SIR POCHKHANWALA ROAD WORLI, MUMBAI - 400 025. PAN : AAAPW8501C V S . ITO - 18(3)(2) MUMBAI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI HITESH VAGHASIYA DEPARTMENT BY SHR I R. BHOOPATHI DATE OF HEARING 9 . 1 2 . 20 19 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17 . 2 . 20 20 O R D E R THESE ARE APPEALS BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES OF THE SAME FAMILY AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LEARN ED CIT(A) ON IDENTICAL ISSUES. 2. COMMON ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - BEING INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CA SE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE AIR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,00,000/ - . ON ASSESSING OFFICERS INQUIRY REGARDING ROHAN R. WALVEKAR & APARNA R. WALVEKAR 2 FUNDS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME AS INVESTMENT OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BANK STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, LEARNED CIT(A) TOOK ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THE GRO UND THE SAME WAS NOT AGAIN PRODUCED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) AND HENCE, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBM IT CONCERNED BANK STATEMENT ALONG WITH REQUISIT E DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSING THE RECORD , I N MY CONSIDERED OPINION ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED IF THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 . 2 . 20 20 . SD/ - (SH A MIM YAHYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 17 / 2 / 20 20 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) PS ITAT, MUMBA I