Smt. Shaik Fathima Begum, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward - 3,, Anantapur

ITA 934/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 93422514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PHANI RAJU
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Condonation of delay
• Section: 142(1); 133A; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 934/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT. SHAIK FATHIMA BEGUM, TADIPATRI. PAN BUOPS8390G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, ANANTAPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY : SHRI PHANI RAJU DATE OF HEARING 25-05-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03-06-2015 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 17/01/2014 OF LD. CIT(A), GUNTUR FOR THE AY 2008-09 . 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 4 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY SUPPO RTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT. ON CONSIDERING THE CAUSE OF DELAY, WE AR E INCLINED TO CONDONE THE SAME AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING A ND ADJUDICATION. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO ADDITION OF RS. 9,55,000 MADE BY AO U/S 69A OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL . ON THE BASIS OF MEDIA REPORT THAT IN DECEMBER, 2007 SOME PERSONS IM PERSONATING AS VIGILANCE AUTHORITIES CAME TO THE PREMISES OF M/S F ILTER BEEDIES, A 2 ITA NO. 934 /HYD/2014 STM. SHAIK FATHIMA BEGUM PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF ASSESSEES SON SRI SHAIKH MA HABOOB BASHA AND TOOK AWAY CASH OF RS. 33 LAKH AND GOLD JEWELLER Y, A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED ON 15/03/2008 IN THE BUSINESS PR EMISES OF ASSESSEES SON. AS APPEARS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, IN COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION IN A STATEMENT RECORDED ASSESSEE S SON SRI SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA ADMITTED THAT CASH OF RS. 33 LAKHS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES BELONGED TO HIS MOTHER. A STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED FROM ASSESSEE WHEREIN SHE ACCEPTED TH AT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 33 LAKH BELONGS TO HER. ON THE BASIS OF STAT EMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 148 AS WELL AS U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT CALLING UPON ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPO NSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,82,48 4 COMPRISING OF HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME OF RS. 36,109 AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS. 2,50,000. AS FAR AS CASH OF RS. 33 LAKH IS CONCERNED, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE THAT SHE ALONG WITH HER TWO D AUGHTERS EARNED WAGES FROM ROLLING BEEDIES AND THE SAVINGS MADE OVE R A PERIOD OF 30 YEARS ACCUMULATED TO RS. 33 LAKHS. IT WAS FURTHER S TATED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,77,500 RECEIVED FROM LIC ON DEATH O F ASSESSEES HUSBAND, ALSO FORMED PART OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WIT H ASSESSEE OF RS. 33 LAKHS. AO WHEN CALLED UPON ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT A STATEMENT SHOWING CASH ACCUMULATION OF ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGH TERS, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A STATEMENT OF CASH AVAILABLE AS UNDER: 1. SMT. FATHIMA BEGUM (ASSESSEE) RS. 17,98,000 2. SMT. FAMIDA MEDA KISHWAR RS. 2,00,000 (MARRIED DAUGHTER) 3. KUM. KHAZA BANNI RS. 1,70,000 (UNMARRIED DAUGHTER) ___________ TOTAL RS. 21,68,000 =========== ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT FURNISHED BY ASSESSE ES AR, AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ACCUMULATED CASH BALANCE FROM WAGE S RECEIVED FROM 3 ITA NO. 934 /HYD/2014 STM. SHAIK FATHIMA BEGUM BEEDI ROLLING BY ASSESSEE AND HER TWO DAUGHTERS AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM LIC PUT TOGETHER COMES TO RS. 23,45,000 AS AGAINST CASH AVAILABLE OF RS. 33 LAKHS. SINCE ASSES SEE COULD NOT OFFER PROPER EXPLANATION FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 9,55,000, AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF ASSESSEE U /S 69A OF THE ACT AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. BEING AGGRIEVED OF SUCH ADDITION, AS SESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 5. IN COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT APART FROM ACCUMULATED SAVINGS FROM WAGES RECE IVED FROM BEEDI ROLLING AND LIC MATURITY AMOUNT, AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 3,45,000, ASSESSEE ALSO EARNED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS WELL AS AGRICULTURE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. IF INCO ME FROM THESE TWO SOURCES ARE CONSIDERED, THEN, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 9,5 5,000 TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED WOULD ALSO STAND EXPLAINED. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SAME. HE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVID ENCE EITHER WITH REGARD TO OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OR EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED DETAILS WITH REGARD TO LOCATION OF THE HOUSE PROPER TY FROM WHICH INCOME WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN EARNED. LD. CIT(A) O PINED THAT ASSESSEE WHILE WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GENERATED OV ER THE YEARS HAS REDUCED NOMINAL AMOUNT TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. T HUS, HE CONCLUDED THAT AGRICULTURAL AND RENTAL INCOME, IF T HERE BE ANY, WOULD HAVE BEEN USED BY ASSESSEE TOWARDS HER PERSONAL EXP ENDITURE AND NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED BY HER TO FORM PART O F ACCUMULATED CAPITAL. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. BE ING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 6. LD. AR MORE OR LESS REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 9,55,000 CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY AS ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF SUCH AMOUNT BEFORE LD. CIT( A). LD. AR 4 ITA NO. 934 /HYD/2014 STM. SHAIK FATHIMA BEGUM SUBMITTED, WHILE WORKING OUT THE CASH AVAILABILITY, A MISTAKE WAS COMMITTED BY ASSESSEE IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERAT ION THE RENTAL INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH, IF, CONSIDERE D, WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 9 ,55,000. AS FAR AS LD. CIT(A)S OBSERVATION WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURA L INCOME, LD. AR SUBMITTED, ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LA ND TO THE EXTENT OF 3.82 ACRES AND IN THIS CONTEXT, HE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF SR. CIVIL JUDGE, GUTHI DATED 29/12/-04, WHICH LD. AR SOUGHT T O SUBMIT AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THUS, LD. AR SUBMITTED, SINCE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE CAPITAL AVAILABLE OF RS. 33 LAKHS, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. 7. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED BEFORE US, AO IS FAIR ENOUGH TO ACCEPT THE CAPITAL AVAILABLE TO THE EXTEN T ASSESSEE COULD FURNISH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 9,55,000 IS CONCERNED, ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE, HENCE, AO HAS NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO TREAT THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. LD. DR SUBMITTED, EVEN BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ASSES SEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME. AS FAR AS FURNISHING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY ASSESSE E IS CONCERNED, LD. DR SUBMITTED, SINCE SUCH EVIDENCE IS FURNISHED FOR THE FIRST TIME CLAIMING AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE MATTER MAY BE VER IFIED BY AO. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF RE VENUE AUTHORITIES. AS COULD BE SEEN, OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH ASSESS EE AMOUNTING TO RS. 33 LAKHS, AO HAS ACCEPTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 23,4 5,000 TO BE FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE BALANCE A MOUNT OF RS. 9,55,000 IS CONCERNED, SINCE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXP LAIN PROPERLY, AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. IT IS THE CONTENTI ON OF LD. AR BEFORE US, WHILE PREPARING THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THERE IS A MISTAKE IN NOT 5 ITA NO. 934 /HYD/2014 STM. SHAIK FATHIMA BEGUM TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION RENTAL INCOME AND AGRICUL TURAL INCOME AS A RESULT OF WHICH SHORTFALL IN EXPLAINING THE CASH AV AILABLE OCCURRED. IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIVIL COURT WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ON PERUSAL OF RE TURN OF INCOME FILED BY ASSESSEE, COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED TO PAPER BOOK, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME. ON GOING THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF CAPITAL GROWTH FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK, IT APPEARS THAT RENTAL INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING EARNED RENTAL INCOME OVER THE YEARS WHICH ALSO FORMS PART OF CASH AVAILABLE UNDER CONSIDERATION REQUIRES VERIFICATION. SIMILARLY, CLAIM OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME REQUIRES CONSIDERATION IN VIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SU BMITTED BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR CONSIDERING AFRESH THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS. 9,55,000 AFTER EXAMINING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RENTAL INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AO MUST AFFORD REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 3 RD JUNE, 2015 KV 6 ITA NO. 934 /HYD/2014 STM. SHAIK FATHIMA BEGUM COPY TO:- 1) SMT. SHAIK FATHIMA BEGUM, C/O CH. PARTHASARATHY & CO., 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOWBHAGYA AVENUE, ST. NO.1, ASHOKNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 020. 2) ITO, WARD 3, ANANTAPUR. 3 CIT(A)- GUNTUR 4) CIT, TIRUPATHI 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.