Ku. Kruti Kedar Shah, Nagpur V. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur

ITA 94/NAG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9621 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H WANARE
• Assessee Lawyers: R K GANERIWALA
• Keywords: Gift; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR E-BENCH, NAGPUR (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT MUMBAI) . . , . / BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER / AND , . . SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 94/NAG/2010 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 KU. KRUTI KEDARKUMAR SHAH, C/O. M/S. NILESH TRADERS, ANAJ BAZAR, ITWARI, NAGPUR. PAN: AVTPS 0616 C VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II, 2 ND FLOOR, SARAF CHAMBERS, SADAR, NAGPUR. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.K. GANERIWALA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H. WANARE ! '#$ / DATE OF HEARING : 17-12-2012 %& ! '#$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-12-2012 '( / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT. 20-05-2010 OF THE CIT - II, NAGPUR, PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT), ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT IS ILLEGAL, INCOR RECT, BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. APPELLANT CRAVES A RIGHT TO ADD, MODIFY, ALTER O R WITHDRAW AND OF THE GROUND/S OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 2. ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-03-2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,51,670/-. ASSESSMENT WAS FIN ALISED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE ITA NO. 94/NAG/2010 KU. KRUTI KEDARKUMAR SHAH 2 ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ON 31-03-2009 ACCEPTING THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. CIT-II, NAGPUR VIDE HIS NOTICE DT. 28-01-2010 ISSUE D A NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT AS HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. AS PER THE CIT, AO HA D NOT LOOKED INTO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. I) GIFT RECEIVED FROM MISS BHARATI R. SHAH RS. 50,000/ -. II) DEPOSITS IN BANK. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT HELD THAT AO WAS UNDER THE OBLIGATION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDING S U/S. 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT WITH REFERENCE TO DISCLOSURE OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S AMOUNTING TO RS. 55,000/-. HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO AND DIRECTED HIM TO I NITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 4. BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT AO HAD CALLED FOR THE DETAILS ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION AND HAD APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS NEITHER ERRON EOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE ASSESSEE. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE (DR) RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT AO HAD CALLED FOR THE DETAILS FROM THE AS SESSEE ABOUT THE GIFT AS WELL AS THE BANK INTEREST. PG.NO.5 OF THE PAPER BOOK CLEARLY B RING OUT THE ABOVE FACT. ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO. AO VERIFIED TH E DETAILS ON TEST CHECK BASIS. IN OUR OPINION, THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. CIT HAS NOT MENTIONED AS HOW THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY WHEN DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE W ERE NOT LEFT UN-VERIFIED. NO DOUBT REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED BY THE CIT , IF INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ARE AFFECTED ADVERSELY BECAUSE OF NON-CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL PRODUCED/MADE AVAILABLE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION DOES NOT FALL IN THAT CATEGORY. 6. HENCE, DECIDING GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY HER. ORDER PRONOUNCED BY E-BENCH AT MUMBAI ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. GUPTA ) ( / RAJENDRA ) ') / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ ') / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *+ MUMBAI, ,' DATE: 17 TH DECEMBER, 2012 TNMM ITA NO. 94/NAG/2010 KU. KRUTI KEDARKUMAR SHAH 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR, ITAT, NAGPUR 6. GUARD FILE -' ' //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT