Mehrun Nisha, Lakhimpur-Kheri V. Income Tax Officer, Lakhimpur-Kheri

ITA 697/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4672 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.697/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI. VS MEHRUN NISHA, W/O SHRI ISLAMUDDIN, C/O HIND DIESEL, PALIA KALAN, DISTT. LAKHIMPUR KHERI PAN:ASLPN0047P (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI T. RAM, ADVOCATE SHRI JAVED USMANI, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 02/02/2016 DATE OF HEARING 04/03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 27/08/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS IN FACT & LAW HAS ON ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.495 000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SANCTION 69 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL HA S ERRED IN FACT & LAW BY NOT ACCEPTING REASONABLENESS PAST OF SAVINGS. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS EARNE D IN FACT & LAW BY NOT ACCEPTING DOWER DEBTS AS WELL AS PETTY GIFTS FROM THE RELATIONS SINCE MARRIAGE TO DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. 2 4. THAT APPELLANT ASSESSES RESERVES A RIGHT TO RAIS E ANY ADDITIONAL GROUND AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAM E CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHEREAS LE ARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS REGARDING PURCHASE OF HOUSE FOR RS.5,45,020/-. REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, IT WAS EXPLAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO MUSLIMS RELIGION AND TRADITION OF MUSLIM RELIGION IS PROHIBITING TO UTIL IZE INTEREST INCOME AND THEREFORE, ALL THE PAST SAVINGS OF JOB WORK AND STR IDHAN AS WELL AS SOME GIFTS RECEIVED FROM PARENTS AND IN-LAWS FROM TIME TO TIME HAVE BEEN KEPT IN THE SHAPE OF CASH AT HOME IN HER OWN CUSTODY BUT THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED BECAUSE AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND CIT(A) IS THAT THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND HE WAS DEPOSITING MONEY IN BANK ALSO AND THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS KEEPING THE FUNDS IN CASH. IN OUR CON SIDERED OPINION, IF ONE PERSON OF THIS RELIGION IS MAINTAINING BANK ACCOUNT THEN IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT ALL THE PERSONS OF THAT RELIGION ARE ALSO MAINTAINING BANK ACCOUNT OR SHOULD MAINTAIN BANK ACCOUNT. IN OUR CO NSIDERED OPINION, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGA RDING MAINTAINING CASH IN HAND OUT OF PAST SAVING AND STRIDHAN AND GIFTS RECE IVED FROM PARENTS AND RELATIVES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS D ECLARED INCOME OF RS.48,000/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SOME SAVING OU T OF HER INCOME AND EXISTENCE OF SOME STRIDHAN AND GIFTS FROM PARENTS, IN-LAWS ETC. ALSO CANNOT BE RULED OUT. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, INVESTMENT OF RS.5.45 LA C IN PURCHASE OF HOUSE 3 SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED:04/03/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR