ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 32 (1) , MUMBAI V. ASHA TILAKRAJ SHARMA, MUMBAI

MA 191/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6552 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV K GUBGOTRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM M.A.NO.191/MUM/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2850 / MUM/20 1 3 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 ) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 32(1) 209, 2 ND FLOOR,C - 10 PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI 400 051 VS. SMT. ASHA TILAKRAJ SHARMA 603, CRYSTAL PARADISE VEERA DESAI ROAD ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI 400 053 PAN/GIR NO. ADAPA9488R ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SHRI RAJEEV K GUBG OTRA ASSESSEE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 30 / 11 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09 / 01 /201 9 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THIS M.A. AROSE OUT OF ITA NO.2850/MUM/2013. 2. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE THAT GROUND NO.3 WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WAS NOT DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH AMOUNTS TO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED CONTENTIONS OF LD. DR AND FOUND THAT GROUND NO.3 HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO.7 & 8 WHICH READS AS UNDE R: - M.A NO.191/MUM/2018 MS. ASHA TILAKRAJ SHARMA 2 7. THE A.O. HAS ALSO MADE AN ADDITION U/S. 69 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.83,01,010/ - . BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,89,000/ - . THE PR ECISE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS AS UNDER: REGARDING UNSECURED LOAN, THE A.O. HAS COMMENTED THAT RELEVANT CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED BEFORE HIM EXCEPT REGARDING LOAN OBTAINED FROM SHAHBAZ AMOUNTING TO RS.1,62,444/ - . NO FURTHER FRUITFUL EXPLANATION H AS BEEN OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, ADDITION UNDER THE HEADING UNSECURED LOAN IS RESTRICTED TO RS.,1,62,444/ - AND THE BALANCE OF RS.84,23,678/ - IS DELETED. 8. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REMAND REPORT THAT EXCEPT THE LO AN OBTAINED FROM SHAHBAZ, AMOUNTING TO RS.1,62,444/ - , THE A.O. WAS SATISFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED ADDITION MADE U/S.69 EXCEPT LOAN FROM SHAHBAZ AMOUNTING TO RS.1,62,444/ - . ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR UPHOLDING THE ADDITION U/S. 69 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,62,444/ - . 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE , MUCH LESS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, MA FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 09 / 01 /201 9 SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) SD/ - (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 09 / 01 /201 9 KARUNA SR. PS COPY OF THE ORD ER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//