Md. Moazzam Hossain, Malda V. ITO,Ward-2, Malda, Malda

ITA 853/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8096 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: R K GOEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Value adopted by valuation officer

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.853/ KOL. / 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER), AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.: 853/ KOL. / 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 MD. MOAZZAM HOSSAIN, ..APPELLANT BAKHARPUR, P.S. KALIACHAK, MALDA [PAN :ABJPH 9534 Q] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,..,....RESPONDENT, WARD-2, MALDA APPEARANCES BY: R.K. GOEL, A.R. FOR THE APPELLANT R.K. SAHA, D.R. FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 16, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 1 9, 2012 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS)S ORDER DATED 3 RD JANUARY, 2012, IN THE MATTER OF PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.24,900/-. I.T.A. NO.853/ KOL. / 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES IN A NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FACTS. WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AN INVESTMENT OF RS.1, 13,399/-, ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER, THIS INVESTM ENT WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.2,55,110/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPL AIN THIS DIFFERENCE, THE AMOUNT, I.E. RS.1,33,911/- WAS ADDED TO ASSESSEES INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE MATTER DID NOT REST AT ITAT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO TREATED THIS AMOUNT AS UNEXP LAINED INCOME AND PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). AGGRIEV ED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) BUT WITHOU T ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CA SE AND THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. WE HAVE NOTED THAT, AS HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN STATEMENT OF FACTS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL, THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF DVO REPORT, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT AN ESTIMA TE- HOWSOEVER WELL INFORMED AS IT MAY BE, CANNOT BY ITSELF BE A REASON ENOUGH FOR IMPOSITION OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED. THE AMOUN T INVOLVED IS ALSO A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS COOP ERATED IN ALLOWING THE MATTER TO REACH FINALITY, BY NOT RESORTING TO P ROLONGED LITIGATION ABOUT THIS ADDITION. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACT ORS, AND HAVING REGARD PARTICULARLY TO THE FACT THAT QUANTUM ADDITI ON IS PURELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT IS A FIT CASE TO I.T.A. NO.853/ KOL. / 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 3 OF 3 DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. WE ACCORDINGLY, DELETE THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 19 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR SINGH PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 19 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012 COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.