Mahesh Kumar Sharma , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 704/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8422 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ESTHER N HANGAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Source of fund; Condonation of delay
• Section: 69C; 133(6); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.704/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA, FLAT NO.203, AJAY AVENUE, DOMALGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 029. PAN: BGSPS 2212 K VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY: SRI ESTHER N. HANGAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 29/11/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02 / 01 /201 9 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD DATED 29.12.2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - (1) THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,75,000/ - MADE U/S 69C DISBELIEVING THE SOURCES OF THE APPELLANTS SECOND DAUGHTER (2) THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - MADE U/S 69C DISBELIEVING THE SOURCES OF APPELLANTS THIRD DAUGHTER. (3) THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANTS DAUGHTERS HAVE SUFFICIENT SOURCES TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF APPELLANTS SECOND DAUGHTER. 2 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 70 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE US AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY. IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ON THE ISSUE OF SOURCES FOR EXPENSES IN CURRED AT THE TIME OF HIS DAUGHTERS WEDDING AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE WEDDING THERE WAS LOT OF DOMESTIC PROBLEMS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TO RUSH TO THE POLICE AND AS WELL AS THE COURTS AGAINST THE IN - LAWS OF HIS DAUGHTER DUE TO WHICH HE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, OPPOSED TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. 3. TAKING THE CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSEES AFFIDAVIT, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE DELAY IS NOT WILFUL. THEREFORE, THE DELAY OF 70 DAYS IS CONDONED. 4. AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE ARE CONCERNED , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PERFORMED THE MARRIAGE OF HIS 2 ND DAUGHTER ON 08.07.2008 AND IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT AROUND RS. 40 LAKHS FOR THE SAME. TO VERIFY THE SOURCES FOR THE EXPENDITURE, THE INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSEE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND THE SOURCE OF INCOME. THEREFORE, A NOTI CE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED CALLING FOR A RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FIELD THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 23.07.2013 DECLARING THE INCOME OF RS. 89,140/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE SOURCES EXPLAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CONTRIBUTION BY HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE A.O WAS, HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13,50,000/ - AND BROUGHT IT TAX. 3 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), W HO GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 2,75,000/ - ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED FROM THE 2 ND DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE MS. POOJA SHARMA AND RS. 5 LAKHS ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED FROM HIS 3 RD DAUGHTER, MS. VANDANA SHARMA. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS MS. POOJA SHARMA IS CONCERNED, SHE WAS ALREADY WORKING WITH M/S. AXIOM HEALT H CARE INDIA P. LTD., AND WAS EARNING A SALARY OF RS. 5,000/ - PER MONTH FROM 2003 AND RS. 10,000/ - PER MONTH IN THE YEARS 2006 AND 2007. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE SALARY SLIPS ALSO AND THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE A DDITION . SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO THE SUM RECEIVED FROM MS. VANDANA SHARMA, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE WAS WORKING WITH M/S. ANAND FOOD PRODUCTS FROM 2002 - 2008 AND AT HITECH CITY FROM FEBRUARY, 2008 AND EARNED SALARY OF RS. 20,000/ - PLUS OTHER ALLOWANCES AND THEREFORE, SHE HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCES TO MAKE THE CONTRIBUTION. THUS, HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS BE DELETED. 7. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAIN ED THE SOURCES FOR THE EXPENDITURE AS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A) HAVE ACCEPTED SOME OF THE SOURCES BUT ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MS. POO JA SHARMA AND MS. VANDANA SHAR M A, THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. WE FIND THAT THE REASONS GIVEN FOR CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE ARE THE SAME IN THE C ASE OF BOTH MS. VANDANA SHARMA AND MS. POOJA SHARMA. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT IN 4 INDIAN SOCIETY , THE FAMILY MEMBERS CONTRIBUTE TO PERFORM A WEDDING IN THE FAMILY. SINCE ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE WORKING AND HAD INDEPENDENT SOURCES OF INCOME, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED FOR THE WEDDING. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPIES OF SALARY SLIPS AS EVIDENCE AND THE A.O. HAS NOT FOUND THEM TO BE NOT GENUINE. WE NOTICE THAT MS. POOJA MUST HAVE EARNED GROSS SALARY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6.60 LAKHS AND AFTER SPENDING 50% TOWARDS DOMESTIC USE, STILL SHE WOULD HAVE SAVED RS. 3.30 LAKHS AS A CONSERVATIVE SAVER. SIMILARLY, MS. VANDANA MUST HAVE EARNED ABOUT RS. 10.80 LAKHS PRESUMING SHE HAD EARNED RS. 10,000/ - PER MONTH DURING 2002 - 08 AND 2009 RS. 20,000/ - P.M. MS VANDANA COULD HAVE SAVED RS. 5.40 LAKHS DU RING THIS PERIOD. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SOURCES HAVE BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 02 ND JANUARY, 2019 . SD/ - SD/ - (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 02 ND JANUARY, 2019. OKK COPY TO: - 1) MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA C/O. CH PARTHASARATHY & CO, 1 - 1 - 298/2/B/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOWBHAGYA AVENUE, ST. NO.1, ASHOK NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 020. 2) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1), 7 TH FLOOR, D - BLOCK, AC GUARDS, IT TOWERS, MASAB TAN, HYDERABAD 500004. 3) THE CIT(A) - 1 , HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 1 , HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE