SUBARNA MALLICK ,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR , KOLKATA

The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1) Addition of Rs. 37,00,758 u/s 69- That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the fact and submissions made on behalf of the assessee, and allowed the Order passed by the learned Assessment Officer without appreciating the fact that the investments made was a mere re-investment of fund, where the investment added u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred

Assessment year: 2011-12 Subarna Mallick to as “Act") by the impugned order in original was to amount of Rs.37,00,758/- whereas Investment redeemed was to amount of Rs.70,11,950/- (approximately), which was clearly indicated in the data recovered by the learned Assessing Officer. 2) Addition of Rs. 37,00,758 u/s 69- That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the fact and submissions made on behalf of the assessee, and allowed the order passed by the Assessment Officer without appreciating the fact that an amount of Rs.6,52,000/- was transferred from the husband in regards to the investments made in the hand of the wife, which was highlighted in the bank statement attached in the submission. 3) Addition of Rs.1,88,000/- u/s 69 - That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the fact and submissions made on behalf of the assessee, and allowed the order passed by the learned Assessment Officer without appreciating the fact the deposits of Rs. 1,88,000/- were made over a period of tine and as declared, it was accumulated cash in the hand of assessee, saved over time from the family expenses, which is well below the limit prescribed as per law and proof of such cash in hand of a housewife is impossible to provide evidence for. 4) Addition of Bank Interest of Rs.39,086 - That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the fact and allowed he order passed by the learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact the amount was subjected to TDS of Rs.4,321/- and subject to fact the only income for the year as to the tune of Rs.39,085/-, the assessee is not liable for filing income tax return u/s 39 of the Act. 5) The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 39,27,840/- made in respect of the above-mentioned additions be deleted. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal

The ld. counsel in this respect has submitted that the lower authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged unexplained investments/deposits were in fact the reinvestments out of the redeemed investments in mutual funds and further that an amount of Assessment year: 2011-12 Subarna Mallick Rs.6,52,000/- was received by the assessee from his husband through banking channel. That the small deposits in bank were also out of the said amount and further out of savings accumulated over the years. The ld. counsel has submitted that all the details relating to the source of investments were furnished before the lower authorities but they have failed to examine the same. The ld. counsel in this respect has relied upon the copy of the bank statements as well as details of the amount redeemed from earlier investments. The ld. counsel has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the relevant evidences and details and thereafter to pass de novo assessment order.

In view of the above submissions of the ld. AR and after going through the record, we are of the view that the interests of justice will be well-served if the matter on this issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issues afresh after examination of the details and evidences furnished by the assessee. We ordered accordingly.

Ground No.4 – Vide Ground No.4, the assessee has agitated the confirmation of addition of interest income of Rs.39,085/-.

The ld. counsel has submitted that the assessee’s total income was less than the prescribed limb for filing Income Tax Return, therefore, the assessee did not file the Income Tax Return. That even the assessee did not claim the refund of TDS deducted on the interest income. Since, the assessee was not liable to file the return and the income was less than the prescribed limb, therefore, the assessee was not liable to pay any tax on this amount.

In view of the above submissions of the ld. AR, this issue is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the contentions of the assessee and decide this issue afresh.

Ground No.5&6 – These grounds are general in nature. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 30th November, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- [डॉ�टर मनीष बोरड /Dr. Manish Borad] [संजय गग� /Sanjay Garg] लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य /Judicial Member Dated: 30.11.2023. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Subarna Mallick 2. ITO, Ward-1(4), Durgapur 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),