SRI. B.M. MUMDAZ ALI vs. DCIT,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 937/BANG/2013Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 July 2019AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) and AO had not verified the assessee's claim that the income from the property sale was declared in the return. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

During a search, a document indicated cash received totaling Rs. 27,00,000/-. The assessee explained this was from the sale of property for Rs. 11,30,000/- and the rest was a loan. The AO added the Rs. 11,30,000/- as undisclosed income as it wasn't declared and the sale wasn't confirmed.

What were the issues?

Whether the income from the sale of property was adequately declared by the assessee and if the AO and CIT(A) properly verified this claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI JASON P. BOAZ

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR-I), ITAT, Bangalore
Hearing: 09.07.2019Pronounced: 19.07.2019

Date of hearing : 09.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 O R D E R

Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President

1.

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 20.3.2013 of CIT(Appeals), Mysore, relating to assessment year 2008-09.

2.

This appeal was heard on 28.11.2017 and an order was passed on 26.2.2018 disposing the appeal. The Assessee filed Miscellaneous application No. 270/Bang/2018 u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), pointing out that ground No.7 of the grounds of appeal had not been disposed/decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 17.9.2018 recalled the order of the Tribunal for the limited purpose of adjudication of Gr.No.7 of the grounds of appeal. This is how this appeal has now come up for hearing before us for the limited purpose of adjudication of Gr.No.7.

3.

Ground No.7 raised by the Assessee in the grounds of appeal

reads as follows:- “7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(appeals) is not justified in law in confirming the addition of Rs.11,30,000/- made by the learned Assessing Officer on account of sale of property to Sri.Y.M.Shetty as unexplained income, under the facts and circumstances of the case”.

4. The Assessee is an individual engaged in the business of fish-meal and fish manure and timber business. There was a search u/s.132 of the Act in the case of the Assessee on 17.1.2008. An order of assessment u/s.153A read with Sec.143(3) of the Act was passed on 24.12.2009 in which several additions were made to the total income of the Assessee for AY 2008-09. One such addition was an addition of Rs.11.30,000/- made on the basis of a seized document MA-II/8 dated 17.1.2008 which was found in the course of search in the case of the Assessee. The said document which was a registered contained an entry for cash received totaling to Rs.27,00,000/- from Smt.Anu Shetty, Mumbai, during financial year 2007-

08. The Assessee explained that he had sold property to YM Shetty for a consideration of Rs.11,30,000/-, and that the remaining sum was advance (loan) received by the Assessee from one Mr. Abdul Salam. The AO held that the sum of Rs.11,30,000 received on sale of the property has not been declared in the return of income and the factum of sale has also not been confirmed either by Anu Shetty or YM Shetty. The AO therefore added the sum of Rs.11,30,000 as undisclosed income of the Assessee. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO.

5.

The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted before us that the income on sale of the property had been declared by the Assessee in the return of income and prayed that the required details will be furnished to the AO if the issue is remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration. In this regard our attention was drawn to paragraph-14 of the statement of facts filed before the CIT(A) wherein, he has specifically alleged that the sum of Rs.11,30,000/- has been offered to tax in Assessee’s letter dated 24.11.2009 receipt of which was duly acknowledged by the AO vide endorsement dated 25.11.2009.

6.

These facts have not been verified by the CIT(A) or the AO and it requires to be examined again. Therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and remand for fresh consideration by the AO the addition of Rs.11,30,000/- after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

Ground No.7 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of July, 2019.

More judgments on Section 132

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →