Sri Amitav Banerjee, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-1(1), DURGAPUR, Durgapur

MA 51/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2857 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 M.A . NO. 5 1 /KOL/201 4 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 363 /KOL/201 1 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 5 - 20 0 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 5 1 /KOL/201 4 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 363 /KOL/201 1 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 5 - 20 0 6 SRI AMITAV A BANERJEE,........................................ ..... .............. PETITIONER C/O. V.N. PUROHIT & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 32B, GANESH CHANDRA AVENUE, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700 013 [PAN : A HNPB 7336 E ] - VS. - INCOME TAX OFFICER , ....................... ...... . .................... . RESPONDENT WARD - 1(1) , DURGAPUR APPEARANCES BY: SHRI V.N. PUROHIT, F.C.A. , FOR THE PETITIONER SHRI SANJAY , ACIT, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRU ARY 20 , 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRU ARY 20 , 201 5 O R D E R PER SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 363 /KOL/201 1 DATED 2 6 .0 8 .201 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 5 - 06 . 2. SHRI V.N. PURO HIT, F.C.A. , REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SANJAY , A CIT , SR. D.R., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2 M.A . NO. 5 1 /KOL/201 4 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 363 /KOL/201 1 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 5 - 20 0 6 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A .R. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL IN PARA 7 IN SO FAR AS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT A PERUSAL OF PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN PRODUCED. IT WAS THE SU BMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH REQUIRED THE ORDER TO BE RE - CALLED. 4. IN REPLY, LD. SR. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS AN ISSUE IN RE SPECT OF THE VALUATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT A PERUSAL OF PAGE 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE DETAILS WITH THE SOURCES OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN TH E IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEING THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND THIS HAD LED TO THE REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF THE DETAILS ON THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED , T HE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT AND THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, WHICH CALLS FOR ANY RECTIFICATION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 7 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE DECIDE D BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS IN RESPECT OF THE VALUATION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY REPRESENTING THE HOUSE PROPERTY. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 7 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE DETAILS OF THE INVESTMENT HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. FUR THER A PERUSAL OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER S REPORT, WHICH IS AT PAGES 102 TO 115 OF THE PAPER BOOK, AT PAGE 103 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE GENERAL INFORMATION, TECHNICAL DATA, LAY OUT PLA N , SITE PLAN NOR THE ACCOUNTS AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PROD UCED. IN FACT, ONLY THREE VOUCHERS HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE ALSO NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE 3 M.A . NO. 5 1 /KOL/201 4 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 363 /KOL/201 1 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 5 - 20 0 6 DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. THUS CLEARLY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN RELATION TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAVING NOT BEEN PRODUCED BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION O FFICER , T HE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, WHICH CALLS FOR ANY RECTIFICATION. 6. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISS ED. ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 20 TH DAY OF FEBR UARY , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA GEORGE MATHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 20 TH DAY OF FEBRU ARY , 201 5 COPIE S TO : (1) SRI AMITAVA BANERJEE, C/O. V.N. PUROHIT & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 32B, GANESH CHANDRA AVENUE, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700 013 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), DURGAPUR ( 3 ) CIT ( 4 ) CIT(A) ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B ENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.