SMT. RACHNA BANSAL, LUDHIANA V. ACIT, Alwar

ITSSA 18/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9205 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASH CHANDRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

1 ITSSA 18-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH : JAIPUR. BEFORE SHRI B.R. JAIN AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO ITSSA NO. 18/JP/2011 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1990 TO 6.11.2011. SMT. RACHNA BANSAL VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, C/O SHRI S.K. BANSAL, ALWAR. 9-A, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR, LUDHIANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA DATE OF HEARING : 20.05.2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.05.2013. ORDER PER B.R. JAIN, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08 .09.2011 OF LD. CIT (A), ALWAR RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) ALWAR (RAJASTHA N) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF BANK DEPOSITS OF RS. 75,624/ - MADE BY THE ACIT CIRCLE-II, ALWAR IN COMPUTING THE INCOME U/S 158BC OF THE ACT IN THE BLOCK PERIOD IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE FACTS OF TH E CASE. WHEREAS THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CALCUTTA BENCH, CALC UTTA HAS ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ISSUE. 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. C IT (A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF GOLD JEWELLERY OF RS. 57 ,763/- BY THE ACIST CIRCLE-2, ALWAR (RAJ.) IN COMPUTING THE INCOME U/S 158BC OF THE ACT IN THE BLOCK PERIOD IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF TH E CASE.WHEREAS THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CALCUTTA BENCH, CALC UTTA HAS ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ISSUE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THAT CONSEQUENT TO ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT WAS MADE AT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 15,75,236/-. THIS INCLUDED ADDITION OF RS. 75,624/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FOUR FDRS AMOUNTING TO RS. 52,524/- ALONG WITH INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON FOR RS. 23,100/-. THE INVESTMENT IN THE FDRS WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE FOR RS. 15,000/- ON 7.5.97 IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT, TWO FDRS OF RS. 10,000/- AND RS. 5,000/- IN THE NAME OF MINOR DAUGHTER AND ONE FDR ON 11.11.98 FOR RS. 22,524/-. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AS ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND DOES NOT DISCLOSE TH AT ALL THE UNDISCLOSED ASSETS HAVE BEEN DECLARED BY HER HUSBAND IN THE APPLICATION FILED BE FORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. 4. HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL ON RECO RD. THE CONJOINT READING OF ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AS WELL AS ORDER DATED 31.1.2 011 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUS BAND REVEALS THAT THE APPELLANTS HUSBAND HAS MADE DISCLOSURE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME O F RS. 32 LACS COVERING ALL THE INVESTMENTS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS THE ACC OUNTS OF HIS WIFE WHICH STOOD ACCEPTED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION BY PARA 5.3 OF ITS ORD ER. THAT BEING SO, THE INVESTMENTS IN THE FIXED DEPOSITS ARE TO BE TAKEN AS EXPLAINED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES MADE AT RS. 32 LACS BY HER HUSBAND THAT STOOD ACCEPTED BY THE I NCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION BY ITS ORDER DATED 14.2.2011. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT F IND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN SUSTENANCE OF 3 ADDITION OF RS. 75,624/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO. 1 IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 5. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CON FIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 57,763/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR INVESTMENT IN JE WELLERY FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH WITHOUT AFFORDING BENEFIT OF INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 D ATED 11.5.1994 ISSUED BY CBDT. 6. HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL ON RECO RD. ADMITTEDLY, THE CBDT ISSUED INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11.5.1994 BY WHICH 500 G RAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOR A MARRIED LADY WERE DIRECTED NOT TO BE SEIZED. THE BENEFIT OF SUCH CIRCULAR HAS TO BE AFFORDED FOR CONSIDERING THE JEWELLERY FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEAR CH AS EXPLAINED IN MAKING ASSESSMENT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS HAS BEEN HELD BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. PATI DEVI VS. ITO (1999) 240 ITR 727 (KAR.) AS ALSO BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RATANLAL VYAPARI LAL JAIN, 4 5 DTR 290 (GUJ.). WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION AS UNDIS CLOSED INCOME IN DISREGARD TO THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDT AND ALLOW THE GROUND RAISED IN APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.5.2013. SD/- SD/- ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( B. R. JAIN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 21/05/2013. D/- 4 COPY FORWARDED TO :- SMT. RACHNA BANSAL, LUDHIANA. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2, ALWAR. THE CIT THE CIT (A) THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITSSA NO. 18/JP/2011) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.