RAJ SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1024/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Shri Raj Singh Shekhawat The ITO Vs. A-V/401-B, Kamal Apartment No.2 Ward- 3 (5) Opp. Metal Factory, Banipark, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BNEPS 9009 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri S.S. Shekhawat CA & Shri Raj Singh Shekhawat – assessee jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Shri R.A. Verma, Addl CIT-. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 17/01/2017 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 30/01/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur dated 29-09-2016 for the assessment year 2008-09 raising therein following ground:- ‘’The ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A), Jaipur made/sustained addition of Rs. 6,00,752/- against the provision of law ignoring factual position.’’

2 ITA No. 1024/JP/2016 Shri Raj Singh Shekhawat vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur . 2.1 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee, the facts as emerges from

the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:-

3.1.2 Determination

(i) The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of AIR information that the appellant had made investment of Rs. 12,21,152/- in the Mutual Funds during the year under consideration, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act which was served upon the last known address of the appellant through ‘affixture’. However, no return of income was filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act but again no compliance was made. Consequently, the AO made assessment u/s 147/144 of the Act and determined the total income of the appellant at Rs. 12,21,152/-

(ii) During appellate proceedings, it was submitted by the A.R. that the appellant is a Non Resident Indian (NRI) and is staying at Singapore for the last so many years and the earlier A.R. did not made any compliance to the statutory notices and made a prayer for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. As the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the details before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings, the same were admitted as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and the copies of the same alongwith the written submissions were forwarded to the AO to make necessary enquiries and to intimate the residential status of the appellant, whether the investment made during the year under consideration were disclosed or otherwise and any other income accrued or arisen in India to the appellant during the year consideration as it was stated by the A.R. that the investment in Mutual Funds made out of the transfers in the NRE account of the appellant from its at Singapore.

3 ITA No. 1024/JP/2016 Shri Raj Singh Shekhawat vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur . (iii) In its remand report, the residential status of the appellant was stated as ‘non resident’, therefore, the AO is directed to take the residential status of the appellant as ‘non resident’ by determining the total income of the appellant.

(iv) In the remand report, the AO stated that out of the investment made during the year under consideration, the appellant could not explain the source of investment made in Mutual Funds amounting to Rs. 3 lac on 31-12-2007 and Rs. 3,00,752/- on 31-03-2008. In its rejoinder to the remand report, it was stated by the A.R. that the investments in the Mutual Funds were made through the NRE account of the appellant and all the partial payments may be considered.

(v) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order ad the material placed on record. It is noted that as per the AIR information placed on record, the above investments of Rs. 3 lac on 31-12-2007 and Rs. 3,00,752/- on 31-03-2008 were made in the Mutual Funds of IDFC, however, the details of investment made by the appellant in the Mutual Funds during the year under consideration do not include the investment in IDFC Mutual Fund at all. Therefore, the investment of Rs. 6,00,752/- in IDFC Mutual Fund is found to be unexplained and hereby sustained and the balance investment of Rs. 6,20,400/- which was found to be explained by the AO is hereby deleted.

(vi) It was noted from the details of AIR information that the appellant has also received a sum of Rs. 20,400/- (8,676+11,724) from Sundram Mutual Fund on which TDS of Rs. 894/- (118+776) was made by the payer. The appellant has also earned interest income of Rs. 4,341/- on its saving bank account as admitted by the A.R. vide its reply dated 12-08-2016. As the same were not offered for taxation, the AO is directed to include the same in the total income of the appellant. In view of the relevant provisions of the Act, no notice for enhancement of income was given as the overall income of the appellant is not being increased.

4 ITA No. 1024/JP/2016 Shri Raj Singh Shekhawat vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur . 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.’’

2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for

deletion of addition of Rs. 6,00,752/-with following written submission

dated 17-01-2017.

‘’ The assessee Shri Raj Singh Shekhawat personally visited to the IDFC authorities and obtained certificate of status of his investment.

Investment was made originally in the Mutual Funds of SCCF. The SCCF is renamed as IDFC and now certificate of the IDFC in two pages is submitted herewith. Now my humble request as explanation is as under:-

2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR relied on the order of the

lower authorities.

5 ITA No. 1024/JP/2016 Shri Raj Singh Shekhawat vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur . 2.4 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials

available on record. It is noted from the records that the assessee had invested Rs. 3,00,000/- on 31st Dec. 2007 in IDFC Classic Equity Growth

– Dividend (renamed from SCCF). It was invested out of the switch out of investment made by the assessee on 9th June, 2006. Thus the amount

was already part of the investment as per the bank statement and

statement from Mutual Funds which are evident from pages 25,26, 29

and 30 of the assessee's paper book. Hence, this amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs

cannot be sustained as addition to the income of the assessee. As regards

the other amount of Rs. 3,00,752/- which includes the amount of

Rs. 752/- as Security Transaction Tax, it is noted that the assessee has

claimed that he has not made any such investment in IDFC as on 31-03-

2008. It is further noted that this entry of fund amounting to Rs. 3.00 lacs

is switched out plus Rs. 752/- as STT deducted by IDFC at source which

comes to Rs. 3,00,752/-. It is evident from page 25 to 26 of the

assessee's paper book. The assessee claimed that he had not made any

investment as on 31-03-208. Therefore, in the interest of equity and

justice, the issue of Rs. 3,00,752/- is restored to the file of the AO for

verification. If the AO finds the same in order then the relief may be

6 ITA No. 1024/JP/2016 Shri Raj Singh Shekhawat vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur . allowed accordingly. Thus the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/01/2017

Sd/- ¼HkkxpUn½ (Bhagchand) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30 /01/ 2017 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Raj Singh Shekahwat, Jaipur 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 3(5),Jaipur vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@ CIT(A). 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1024/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत