PRINCY JOSEKUTTY,ERNAKULAM V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, ERNAKULAM

ITA 618/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves four appeals by Princy Josekutty against the orders of the CIT(A)-3, Kochi, concerning the assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16. The appeals were related to protective additions made to the assessee's income following a search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the premises of KLM and Homeshine Groups. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 19,19,000 to the assessee's income, which was claimed to have been offered by her husband in his tax returns. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer needed to re-evaluate the facts, given the lack of evidence provided by the assessee to substantiate her claims during the lower proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31363 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V.SWARNALATHA
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYA RAVINDRAN
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 618 to 621/Coch/2023 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2015-16) Princy Josekutty Kannattumadhom Kuthukuzhy Kothamangalam 686691 [PAN: AFBPJ3647J] vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1 6th Floor, Kandamkulathy Tower, M.G. Road Ernakulam (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Smt. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 19.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024 O R D E R Per Bench These assessee’s four appeals arise against orders of the CIT(A)-3, Kochi in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as under :- Sr. No. ITA No. AY DIN & Order No. Date 1 618/Coch/2023 2012-13 ITA 107/E/CIT(A)-III/2019-20 29.06.2023 2 619/Coch/2022 2013-14 ITBA/APLS/S/250/2023- 24/1054042502(1) 29.06.2023 3 620/Coch/2023 2014-15 ITA 109/E/CIT(A)-III/2019-20 29.06.2023 4 621/Coch/2023 2015-16 ITBA/APLS/S/250/2023- 24/1054042548(1) 29.06.2023 Heard both parties. Case files perused. 2 ITA Nos. 618 to 621/Coch/2023 Princy Josekutty 2. Both the learned representatives at the outset invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in the assessee’s “lead” appeal in ITA NO. 618/Coch/2023, in first and foremost assessment year 2012-13, confirming the assessment making addition of Rs.19,19,000/- in her hands as follows: - “2. The appellant, Smt. Princy Josekutty is partner in Partnership Firms, which are sister concerns of KLM Group of business entities. Subsequent to search operation u/s.132 of the Act carried on at the business and residential premises of KLM and Homeshine Groups on 05/10/2015, a notice u/s.148 was issued to the appellant who had been a partner in many firm in the group for the AY under consideration. During the course of the proceedings it was found that there were cash credits in the bank account of the appellant to the tune of Rs. 10,19,000/- the source of which was not commensurate with the return of income filed by the appellant. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant has stated that the income under consideration was offered to tax in the hands of her husband Shri Josekutty Xavier in the petition filed before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). In the absence of any evidence, such as order by the ITSC, to validate the claim of the appellant, the AO made a protective addition of Rs. 10,19,000/- in the hands of the appellant. Against the order of the AO, the appellant has preferred the present appeal raising the following ground. The addition amounting to Rs. 10,19,000/- made by the AO is illegal as the income added by the AO was offered in the hands of the husband of the appellant Shri Josekutty Xavier, in the petition filed before the Hon'ble ITSC. 3. I have perused the order of the AO and the ground raised by the appellant. It needs to be stated here that during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant has made a submission that the cash credits appearing in her bank accounts has been offered to tax in the hands of her husband Shri Josekutty Xavier. However, the appellant has not adduced any evidence to substantiate her claim. At the time of filing the appeal, the appellant has raised the same ground but failed to adduce evidence such as order u/s.245D(1) or 245D(2) to substantiate her claim. Even in response to notices issued u/s.250 of the Act, the appellant has not submitted any such evidence. In the absence of any evidence to this effect, I find no infirmity in the addition of Rs. 10,19,000/- made by the AO on protective basis. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.” 4. In the result, the appeal is Dismissed.” 3 ITA Nos. 618 to 621/Coch/2023 Princy Josekutty 3. Learned counsel next submits that we are dealing with the protective addition in assessee/wife’s cases and her husband already stands assessed for the very substantive addition as per the proceedings finalised before the Settlement Commission (supra). Faced with this situation, the Revenue’s case before us is that the instant issue requires Assessing Officer’s afresh factual verification once the assessee has not filed all the relevant details in both the lower proceedings. 4. We accordingly deem it a fit case to restore back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification in the foregoing terms with a rider that it shall be assessee’s risk and responsibility to plead and prove the relevant facts in the consequential proceedings within three effective opportunities of hearing. 5. Same order to follow in assessee’s latter three appeals in ITA 619, 620 & 621/Coch/2023 since raising identical pleadings. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee’s four appeals ITA.Nos.618 to 621/Coch./2023 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) Accountant Member (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 23rd October, 2024 n.p. 4 ITA Nos. 618 to 621/Coch/2023 Princy Josekutty Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "