DCIT, C.C.-XXVII, Kolkata, Kolkata V. Shri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

ITA 935/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9327 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH B, KOLKATA () BEFORE . .. . . .. . , , , , , SHRI B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , #$ SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % % % % / ITA NO . 935/KOL/2010 &' ()/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 (+, / APPELLANT ) D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVII, KOLKATA - & - - VERSUS - . (./+,/ RESPONDENT ) SHRI RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA (PAN:ACTPA 5254 H) +, 0 1 #/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S.C.JAIN ./+, 0 1 #/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI A.K.TIBREWAL #2 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . ) )) ), , , , #$ PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 15.02.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS AP PEAL IS RESTRICTION OF RS.2,32,800/- INSTEAD OF AGAINST RS.9,50,600/- MADE BY THE AO. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT WHILE DO ING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.9,50,600/- BY OBSERVING AS U NDER :- IN COURSE OF SEARCH SILVER UTENSILS VALUED AT RS.9 ,50,600/- (NET WEIGHT APPROXIMATELY 49 KG.) WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSEE WAS A SKED U/S 142(1) TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAID SILVER ITEMS ALONG WITH DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THOSE UTENSILS WERE OLD AN D HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AND BELONGED TO THE FAMILY AS ANCESTRAL PROPERTY. THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT PUT FORWARD ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. IT WAS NOTICED THAT 2 IN COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES IN T HE YEAR 1980, NO SILVER UTENSILS WERE INVENTORIED BY THE DEPARTMENT. CONSID ERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS ABOVE THE VALUE OF THE UNDISCLOSED SILVER ITEMS IS TREATED AS ASSESSEES EXPENDITURE FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HEN CE, RS.9,50,600/- IS TREATED AS ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AND A DDED TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME IN THE YEAR 2007-2008. 3.1. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE SA ME BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMI SSIONS OF APPELLANT. THE ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT THAT THE SILVER UTENSILS ARE OLD APPEARS TO BE ONLY PARTIALLY CORRECT. HOWEVER IT IS A FACT THAT NO SUCH SILVER U TENSILS IT COULD BE ONLY AFTER THE SEARCH IN 1980. MOREOVER THE ORAL ARGUMENT TAKE N BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT SIL VER IS PURCHASED EVERY YEAR ON THE OCCASION OF DIWALI OR OTHER SUCH FESTIVALS W AS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF OT HER YEARS FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-7 WERE ALSO BE ING CARRIED OUT BY ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THIS ARGUMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE OF APPELLANT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN SEPARATE ADDITIONS TO TOTAL INCOME OF O THER YEARS ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE OF SILVER UTENSILS IN EACH YEA R. THEREFORE KEEPING IN MIND ALL THE FACTS AND REPLIES OF THE APPELLANT DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ARGUMENT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF APPELLANT DUR ING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO THE FACT THAT IT IS IMPROBABLE THAT APPELL ANT PURCHASED ALL 49 KGS OF SILVER UTENSILS IN ONE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, I ESTIMAT E 12 KG OF SUCH SILVER UTENSILS PURCHASED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME TO RS .2,32,800/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE OF SILVER UTENSILS OF 12 KG AT A RATE OF RS.19,400 PER KG FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL INSTEAD OF RS. 9,50,600/- AS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.2. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. DR APP EARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. ON THE OTHER H AND, THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LD. AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS FAIR AND JUST IN THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL CONTRADICT TO THE FINDINGS 3 OF THE LD. CIT(A) WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER S OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11.02.2011. SD/- SD/- . .. . . .. . , , , , B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , ,, , #$ #$ #$ #$ , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( ('$ '$ '$ '$) )) ) DATE: 11.02.2011. #2 0 .3 4#3(5- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL, CF-146, SALT LAKE, SEC-I , KOLKATA-700064. 2 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVII, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA /3 ./ TRUE COPY, #2&:/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES R.G.(.P.S.)