DAULATRAO BAPU PATIL,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3063/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 November 2018AY 2001-024 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) erred in treating the assessee as a co-operative society. It held that the assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds from D.B. Patil (HUF) could not be ignored if the HUF indeed owned agricultural land and generated income from it. Since these basic facts were not examined, the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a bank employee, made investments in agricultural land and recurring deposits. The Assessing Officer (AO) added these investments to the assessee's income, disbelieving the explanation that the funds originated from D.B. Patil (HUF), as the HUF had not filed any returns. The CIT(A) sustained the additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing the assessee's explanation for the source of investments without properly examining the existence and income of the alleged HUF. Whether the CIT(A) wrongly applied principles applicable to co-operative societies to a limited company.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Dhoke
Hearing: 08.11.2018Pronounced: 08.11.2018

आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश

PER R.S.SYAL, VP :

These five appeals by the assessee relate to the A.Yrs. 1999- 2000 to 2003-04. Since common issues are raised in these appeals, I am, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2.

I am taking up the factual scenario from the appeal for the A.Y. 2002-03, which was argued by the ld. AR on representative basis. Factual matrix relating to this appeal is that the assessee, a bank employee, filed return declaring total income of Rs.1,34,400/-. A report was received from ADIT (Investigation), Kolhapur, which transpired that the assessee made certain investments in agricultural land and Recurring Deposits. For the year under consideration, the assessee made investment in agricultural land amounting to Rs.1,90,000/- and in R.Ds at Rs.36,000/-. On being called upon to furnish the source of such deposits, the assessee

submitted that he received the above money from D.B. Patil (HUF)

which, in turn, was utilised for purchasing agricultural land etc.

The AO did not accept the explanation so rendered on the ground

that D.B. Patil (HUF) had never filed any return of income and the

concept of creation of D.B. Patil (HUF) emerged only after

investigation was carried out by the ADIT (Investigation), Kolhapur.

He, therefore, made an addition of Rs.2,26,000/- for the A.Y. 2002-

3.

The ld. CIT(A) did not concur with the submissions advanced on

behalf of the assessee and sustained the addition.

3.

Similar position prevails for the A.Y. 1999-2000 for which

addition of Rs.1,10,500/- was made and sustained; Rs.59,000/- for

the A.Y. 2000-01; Rs.3,39,561 for the A.Y. 2001-02; and Rs.1.00

lakh for the A.Y. 2003-04. The assessee is aggrieved by such

additions.

4.

I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material

on record. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded on the

premise as if the assessee is a co-operative society and drew

inferences accordingly. As against this, the assessee is a limited

company, not having any traits of a co-operative society. The

assessee explained before the authorities below that he made

investments in agricultural land and R.Ds etc., out of the amount

received from D.B. Patil (HUF). The authorities did not accept the

assessee’s explanation simply for the reason that no returns were

filed by such an HUF. The case of the assessee is that the HUF was

holding certain land from which agricultural income was generated

and such agricultural income was not chargeable to tax. The authorities have brushed aside the explanation so given by the

assessee without even first examining the existence or otherwise of

some agricultural land in favour of the HUF and the resultant

income which, as was claimed to have been used by the assessee

used for making investments in agricultural land and R.Ds. If there

exists some agricultural land pertaining to the HUF, then the

explanation of the assessee explaining the source of investments

made by him from the amount received from the HUF, cannot be

ignored. Since these basic facts about the existence or otherwise of

the agricultural land by the HUF and the earning the agricultural

income with its quantum from such land have not been examined, I

am of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if

the impugned orders are set-aside and the matter is restored to the

file of AO for examining the assessee’s contention in terms set out

above. I order accordingly.

5.

No arguments were advanced against the initiation of re-

assessment proceedings, which ground is, therefore, dismissed as

‘Not argued’.

6.

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 08th November, 2018.

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य�

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 08th November, 2018 सतीश

आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT (Appeals)-13, Pune 3. आयकर आयु� / The Pr. CIT-3, Pune 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / DR 5. ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. // True

आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार

/ True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune*

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →