ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar V. Md.Intekhab Alam, Keonjhar

ITSSA 143/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2732 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; TDS

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos.143 & 144/CTK/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Asses s m ent Years :2008-2009 & 2009-2010) ACIT , Ci rc le-1(2 ), Bhubanes war ..................Re ven ue Versus Md. Intekhab A lam , A/P-Jhum pura, D ist- Keonjha r P AN : AE CP A 793 1 E ....................As sessee Shri Sunil Mishra, AR for the assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR for the Revenue Date of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These two appeals have been filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 30.09.2013 passed in I.T.Appeal No.0300/10-11 & 0299/10-11, for the assessment years 2008- 2009 & 2009-2010. 2. Since similar issues have been raised in both the appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the appeals have been taken together for hearing and disposed of by this consolidated order. First we shall decide the appeal of the revenue for A.Y.2008-2009 and the outcome of the same shall be applied to the appeal of the revenue filed for A.Y.2009-2010. IT(SS)A No.143 & 144/CTK/2013 2 3. It was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that there was a search on the premises of the assessee on 28.05.2008. Notice u/s.153A of the Act was issued on the assessee on 05.03.2010. Xerox copy of the documents had been requested by the assessee on 19.03.2010 and the same had also been given to the assessee. Consequently, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 17.05.2010. No return had been filed nor had any compliance been done by the assessee. The assessee having replied that the assessee is in the process of the segregation of the seized material copies and after completion of segregation, the returns would be filed. In the meantime, the assessee had been summoned by the DDIT (Inv.), U-1 (3), Kolkata. In the statement given before the DDIT (Inv.), U-1 (3), Kolkata, the assessee had stated that he had given a cash gift to his wife Mrs. Sahiba Alam of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- in the assessment year 2006-2007, amount of Rs.2 crores in the assessment year 2007- 2008 and Rs.4,10,00,000/- during the assessment year 2008-2009, respectively. On the ground that the assessee did not have the source to give gift of Rs.2 crores, the amount of Rs.2 crores have been treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. Similarly, it was noticed that the TDS deducted certificate in respect of salary received by the assessee from M/s Aliza International (P) Ltd. showed that the assessee had received salary of Rs.1.3 crores. However, as the assessee had only disclosed of Rs.1 crores, the balance of 30 lakhs have been brought to tax by the AO as undisclosed income of the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee had filed its details before the CIT(A) in the form of IT(SS)A No.143 & 144/CTK/2013 3 computation of total income which has been extracted by the ld. CIT(A) in para 3 page 5 of his order wherein the total income disclosed by the assessee was Rs.10,85,86,390/-. It was the submission that the computation of total income along with details filed have been sent by the ld. CIT(A) to the AO for a remand report. It was the submission that the AO had given a remand report in favour of the assessee. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) without doing any independent verification proceeded to accept the remand report submitted by the AO and had deleted the addition. It was the prayer that the addition as deleted by the ld. CIT(A) may be reversed. It was further submitted that enhancement done by the ld.CIT(A) has not been challenged by the assessee because it was on the basis of computation filed by the assessee himself. 4. In reply, ld. AR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that in the remand proceedings, the assessee had already produced all the details. It was submitted that the assessee has categorically mentioned in the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee was in the process of segregating the details of the seized materials, copies of which have been given to the assessee and the assessee would file its return once the segregation and reconciliation is done. It was the submission that the reconciliation of income had been determined and the same had been furnished in the form of computation of total income before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that this computation has been examined by the AO when he has given a IT(SS)A No.143 & 144/CTK/2013 4 favourable remand report. It was the prayer that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. 6. A perusal of the para 6 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has extracted the remand report submitted by the AO. In the remand report the AO categorically admitted that the source of the amount of gift has been explained. It is also mentioned in the remand report that the amount of Rs.1.3 crores has also been properly explained by the assessee. It is noticed that the amount of Rs.1.3 crores includes part of the salary and part of the repayment of the loan taken from the director. This being so, as the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the basis of the confirmation given by the AO in his remand report, it is unfortunate that the AO has decided to file this appeal before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we find no error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which calls for any interference by us therein and, therefore, we uphold the same. 7. The grounds taken by the assessee in its appeal for A.Y.2009-2010 in IT(SS)A No.144/CTK/2013, are similar to the appeal of the revenue filed for A.Y.2008-2009, except different in figures, wherein we have upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, our observations made in the appeal of revenue in IT(SS)A No.143/CTK/2013 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal of the revenue filed for A.Y.2009-2010 also. IT(SS)A No.143 & 144/CTK/2013 5 8. In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 22/09/2022. Sd/- (अरुण खोड़पऩया) (ARUN KHODPIA) Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 22/09/2022 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशाि ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- ACIT , Ci rc le-1(2 ), Bhubanes war 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- Md. Intekhab A lam , A/P-Jhum pura, D ist- Keonjha r 3. आयकर आय ु क्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आय ु क्त / CIT 5. पिभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्ज पाईऱ / Guard file. सत्यापऩत प्रयत //True Copy//