DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KOLKATA vs. PRERNA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 80/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 December 20244 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the AO had observed that the assessee failed to explain why the investment in shares of foreign deals was not disclosed in the books of account. However, the assessee had explained that the amount of Rs. 1,464/- was drawn from regular funds during her foreign visit and was not accounted separately due to its small size, being considered part of expenditure for the visit. The Tribunal found that the assessee subsequently showed this investment in her books of account by crediting her capital account in AY 2016-17. The Tribunal concluded that the source of the amount had been clearly explained and found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's appeal. Therefore, both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (DCIT, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata) has appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-27, Kolkata, for Assessment Year 2011-12, concerning assessees Gaurav Kumar Chopra and Prerna Kumar Chopra. A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted against the Zenith Metal Group. Following this, a notice under Section 153A was issued to the assessees. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the total income at Rs. 25,58,294/-, making an addition of Rs. 1,464/- under Section 69C for unexplained investment. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessees' appeals, holding that the source of the amount was explained as capital gains credited to the books.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,464/- made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained investment in foreign companies based on seized documents? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the amount of Rs. 1,464/- was drawn from regular funds for earning during foreign investment and was not accounted separately due to its small amount. The assessee later showed this investment in the books of account by crediting her capital account in AY 2016-17. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,464/- made under Section 69C of the Act, which was based on seized documents representing unexplained investment in foreign companies.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 139,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA �ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट�य एवं �ी �द�प कुमार चौबे, �या�यक सद�य के सम� [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.(SS)A. No. 79/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs. Gaurav Kumar Chopra

(PAN: ADZPC 8840 J) ( अपीलाथ� ) Respondent / ��यथ� Appellant / I.T.(SS)A. No. 80/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs. Prerna Kumar Chopra

(PAN: AFXPJ4093 C) ( अपीलाथ� ) Respondent / ��यथ� Appellant /

Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 10.12.2024 क� �त�थ Date of Pronouncement/ 31.12.2024 आदेश उ�घोषणा क� �त�थ For the assessee / Shri S Jhajharia, A.R �नधा�रती क� ओर से For the revenue / राज�व Shri Guru Bhashyam, CITDR क� ओर से

2 I.T.(SS)A. Nos. 79 & 80/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Gaurav Kumar Chopra & Prerna Chopra

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

These are the appeal preferred by the revenue against separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-27, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] for AY 2011-12. In both the appeals, the issues are common and hence taken up together for disposal.

2.

Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed her original return of income u/s 139 of the Act declaring total income of Rs. 25,56,827/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 150/- u/s VIA of the Act. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the was conducted against Zenith Metal Group of cases. The group is engaged in the business of export and import of metals and ferro alloys, distribution of chewing tobacco products and other activities. A notice u/s 153A of the Act was issue and served upon the assessee requesting thereby to file the return, in respect of responses to same, the assessee has filed return of income of Rs. 25,56,830/-. Thereafter all the statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The AO on basis of the assessment order u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act by determining the total income at Rs. 25,58,294/- by unexplained investigation u/s 69C of the Act by making the addition of Rs. 1,464/-.

3.

The assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee have been allowed by holding that the assessee has shown such investment in the books by crediting her capital gain, the source of amount is explained.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the revenue has preferred the appeal.

4.

The Ld. D.R has challenged the impugned order thereby submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition amounting Rs. 1,464/- u/s 69C of the Act which was made as per seized documents under unexplained investment in foreign companies.

3 I.T.(SS)A. Nos. 79 & 80/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Gaurav Kumar Chopra & Prerna Chopra 5. The Ld. A.R supports the impugned the order of the Ld. CIT(A) thereby submitting that the assessee herself explained that this amount will be Rs. 1,464/- was drawn from regular funds for earning during her foreign investment and as per the assessee’s since the assessed amount was pretty small it was not accounted separately.

6.

Upon hearing the submission of the ld. Counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the records and find that the AO on examination of books of account for the year under consideration that the assessee in course of assessment proceedings, the said investment was not duly disclosed. The assessee had failed to explain why the said investment in shares of foreign deals were not disclosed in the books of account.

The assessee herself explained that this amount of Rs. 1,464/- was drawn from regular fund during her foreign visit. Since the amount was pretty small hence it was not accounted separately in the balance sheet for FY 2010-11 and was considered to be part of the expenditure for such foreign visit. However, in due course i.e. in the AY 2016-17 the assessee has shown such investment in the books of account by crediting her capital account. Going over the submission and facts of the case, we find that the source of this amount has clearly been explained. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the facts of the case of the assessee and there after allowed the appeal of the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 31st December, 2024

Sd/- Sd/-

(Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 31st December, 2024 SM, Sr. PS

4 I.T.(SS)A. Nos. 79 & 80/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Gaurav Kumar Chopra & Prerna Chopra Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- DCIT, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata 2. Respondent – Gaurav Kumar Chopra & Prerna Chopra, both are residing at Chopra House, 133, BRBB Road, West Bengal- 700107. 3. Ld. CIT(A)-27, Kolkata 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →