Smt.Sajeena Beevi Abdul Salam, Kollam V. The ITO, Kollam

ITA 691/COCH/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3011 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-10-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTHAM BOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: C A SABU CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM ITA NO. 691 / COCH / 2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 ) SAJEENA BEEVI ABDUL SALAM NAIF MANZIL, ELIKUNNAM MUGAL KAITHODE P.O., NILAMEL KOLLAM 691535 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - III, KOLLAM PAN AVLPA1743Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI C.A. SABU, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANTHAM BOSE , CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 06.10.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06 . 10.2021 O R D E R PER: GEORGE MATHAN, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER C.NO.PR.CIT/TVM/412/J/R - 14/2019 - 20/PCIT/TVPM DATED 10.10.2019 OF THE LEARNED CIT , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FOR AY 2013 - 14 . 2 . SHRI C.A. SABU, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SANTHAM BOSE, CIT - DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3 . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HOUSEWIFE AND SHE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF 30,00,000/ - FROM HER FATHER ON SALE OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIM. IT W AS THE SUBMISSION THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO HAD EXAMINED THE SAME AND HAD MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 6,50,000/ - . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE LEARNED CIT HAD ISSUED NOTICED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON 17.09.2019 PROPOSING TO REVISE THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF 30,00,000/ - WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK HAD BEEN GIVEN ITA NO. 691 /COCH/ 2019 SAJEENA BEEVI ABDUL SALAM 2 TO HER BY HER FATHER AS DOWRY AFTER SELLING THE LAND. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES FATHER IS NO MORE IN SO FAR AS HE EXPIRED ON 04.01.2011 AND SHE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY OR THE VALUE THAT HE RECEIVED. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE SALE DEED OF THE LAND SOLD BY ASSESSEE FATHER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THE CIT DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON 10.10.2019 DIRECTING THE AO TO EXAMINE ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD , REDO THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS THE S UBMISSION OF THE LEARNED A.R. THAT THE AO HAD IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT VERIFIED THE EXISTENCE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAD ALSO CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF 6,50,000/ - . HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 8 OF PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED AO, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4 . IN REPLY THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO T PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OF THE RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM HER FATHER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AMOUNT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY HER FROM HER FATHER WAS ONLY 20,00,000/ - WHERE AS HER CLAIM WAS THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED 25,00,000/ - . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, OF THE RECEIPT OF MONEY HAD BEEN SHOWN. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT WAS CORRECT IN SO FAR AS THE EVIDENCE HAD NOT BEEN EXAMINED PROPERLY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT PASSED U NDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 5 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER SHOWS THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE SAID LAND WAS ONLY 1,27, 2 00/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEES FATHER HAD RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT OF 25,00,000/ - WHICH HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH AS TO HOW THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED A.R. THAT THE FUNDS WERE ITA NO. 691 /COCH/ 2019 SAJEENA BEEVI ABDUL SALAM 3 DEPOSITED IN CASH. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SOURCE O F THE AMOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER, CLEARLY THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ACCEPTING THE SAME IS VIOLATION OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT WAS RIGHT IN INVOKING HIS POWERS UNDER S ECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTING THE AO TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE LAW . 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH OCTOBER, 2021. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN , DATED: 6 TH OCTOBER, 2021 COPY TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT 2 . THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE PR. CIT - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4 . THE DR, ITAT, COCHIN 5 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN N.P.