Smt. Piyusha Mehrotra, Lucknow V. ACIT, Kashipur

ITSSA 14/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0476 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK WADEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: H P SINGH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 14/DEL/10 BLOCK PERIOD: 01.04.1986 TO 21.01.1997 SMT. PIYUSHA MEHROTRA VS. ACIT, KASHIPUR B 1/74, SECTOR B, ALIGANJ LUCKNOW PAN: AGAPM 2400 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.P.SINGH, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIVEK WADEKAR, SR. D.R. ORDER PER G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-II, DEHRADUN DT. 14.01 .2008 PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1986 TO 31.3.1997. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVE R, AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD.CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAINST THE DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 158 BD R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AT RS. 2,40,000/-. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI P.C.MEHROTRA, THE HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TOTAL FDRS AND NSCS WORTH RS.6,60,966/- BELONGING T O THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND. IN VIEW OF ABOVE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158 BD WERE TAKEN IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 158 BD THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN DISCLOSING THE INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE UNDISCLOSED IN COME AS UNDER: ~ 2 ~ S.NO. A.Y. TOTAL INCOME (RS.) RETURNED INCOME (RS.) UNDISCLOSED INCOME (RS.) 1. 1987-88 23,950/- 23,950/- NIL 2. 1988-89 25,080/- 25,080/- NIL 3. 1989-90 22,020/- 22,020/- NIL 4. 1990-91 10,830/- 10,830/- NIL 5. 1991-92 20,410/- 20,410/- NIL 6. 1992-93 1,09,990/- 19,990/- 90,000/- 7. 1993-94 24,790/- 24,790/- NIL 8. 1994-95 23,630/- 23,630/- NIL 9. 1995-96 52,460/- AGR.INCOME 16,000/- 52,460/- AGR.INCOME 16,000/- NIL 10. 1996-97 2,01,540/- AG.INC.44,000/- 51,540/- AGR.INC. 44,000/- 1,50,000/- 3.1. THUS OUT OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENTS IN FDRS/NSCS ETC. OF RS.6,60,966/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SUM OF RS.2,40,00 0/- AS UNEXPLAINED. THE DETAILS OF FDRS ARE GIVEN AT PAGES 1,2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM WHICH WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED INVESTMENTS IN FDRS FROM 4 TH AUGUST, 1982 AND EVERY YEAR SOME MONEY WAS INVESTED . IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE LD.COUNSEL THAT AFTER THE MATURITY AGAIN THE MA TURED AMOUNT ALONG WITH INTEREST WAS INVESTED. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE SEARC H WAS IN THE YEAR 1997 AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS A REGULAR INCOME AND SHE HAD THE HABIT OF SAVING & INVESTMENT, ACCUMULATION OF FDR AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,60,966/- WAS NOT HIGH. THE ASSESSEE BEING A LADY WHO IS NOT KEEPING DAY TO DAY ACCOUNT COULD NOT CORRELATE SOME OF THE FDRS WITH THE DIREC T SOURCE FROM WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED BUT SHE HAS REGULAR INCOME YEAR AFTER YEAR AND ALSO AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN PRECEDING SEVERAL YEARS. IN FACT IF THE INCOME OF THE THREE PRECEDING YEARS IS CONSIDERED THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE THAN THE INVESTMENT OF RS.1,50,000/-. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTE D THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD OF 10 YEARS AT RS.2,40,000/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED THE S AME SHOULD BE DELETED. 3.2. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ~ 3 ~ 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS A REGULAR SOURCE OF INCOME AND SHE IS ALSO IN THE HAB IT OF SAVING AND INVESTMENTS. THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE YEAR 199 7 BUT SHE WAS REGULARLY INVESTING IN FDRS SINCE 1982. CONSIDERING THE TOTA LITY OF THESE FACTS IN OUR OPINION THE ACCUMULATION OF FDRS OF RS.6,60,966/- I N THE LIFE TIME OF THE ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY WHEN SHE WAS HAVING A REGULAR S OURCE OF INCOME AND SHE IS ALSO IN THE HABIT OF SAVING AND INVESTMENT, CANN OT BE SAID TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE MERELY BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT CORRELATE SOME FDRS WITH ANY SPECIFIC SOURCE OF INCOME, IT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED AND CONSEQUENTLY AS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. C0ONSIEDRING THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE FACTS IN OUR OPINION THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TREATING THE FDR OF RS.2,40,000/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (A.T.VARKEY) (G.D. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 19.12.2014 *MANGA ~ 4 ~ COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : 2. RESPONDENT : 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR