ACIT,CIR-29, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. SMT. PUSHPA BAGLA, KOLKATA

- This Revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Kolkata’s order dated 08.11.2016, in case No.cita-8 Kolkata-FY2016-17/0_10_143(3)_B-1A/548,reversing Assessing Officer’s action making addition of ₹45,08,127/- credited to assessee’s capital account, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She had filed her adjournment letter on 06.04.2018. Learned co-ordinate bench accepted the same. The instant appeal was postponed for today therefore. We thus proceed to adjudicate the case on merits ex parte.

Learned Departmental Representative takes us to Revenue’s solitary substantive grievance seeking to revive the Assessing Officer’s action making the above stated addition of ₹45,08,127/- made in the course of assessment. A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT Cir-29, Kol. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Bagla Page 2 Mr. Dasgupta vehemently contends that the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the impugned addition by admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to Revenue’s sole grievance pleaded in the instant appeal. We make it clear first of all that Revenue’s first and foremost plea is that the CIT(A) has admittedly additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. Para-2 of the CIT(A)’s order suggests that he had indeed sought assessing authority’s remand report way back in 2013. Learned CIT(A) then observes that his adjudication is based on the relevant documents forming part of assessee’s submissions made before the Assessing Officer. It therefore does not appear to be a case of additional evidence. Coming to merits, the CIT(A) holds that the impugned sum is assessee’s share in profit of her firm coming by way of distribution as under:- “8. Discussion, and, Appellate decision: The relevant facts speak for themselves from the above documents. It will suffice to just synopsize: The sum is but the appellant’s share in the trust property bequeathed to her and to her 2 sisters, by her father Sh. Shiwchandray Dabriwala [since deceased]. Her father had in the year 2002, set-up a private trust [PS M Beneficiary Trust] for the welfare/interest of his 3 daughters whereby he settled his interest in M/s Calcutta Investors & Promoters [a business firm] for the benefit of his 3 daughters. His son [Sh. Rajendra Kr. Dabriwala] was made one of the trustees. Upon the demise of the father, the partnership share of the father got bequeath to the son, i.e. the brother of the appellant [Sh. Rajendra Kr. Dabriwala]. Honouring the Trust Deed made by his father, and being trustee, he distdributed the share of profit/capital gain from sale of leasehold property to his 3 sisters – the appellant’s share being the sum at ₹45,08,127/-. The sum is but the share of profit from the firm, being distributed, and as such there does not arise of it being taxed in the hands of the appellant. The assessee/appellant had explained the facts to the ACIT AO. it is likely that since the facts were a bit winding, due to passage of years and events, that the ACIT AO [and due to paucity of time] could not appreciate fully. The ACIT AO has not discussed the facts, but merely on opinion made the addition. As regards the narration in the capital a/c as ‘capital gain from sale of leasehold property’ – which had caused the issue, the appellant had explained to the ACIT AO that it could be considered as typographical error. I consider that the narration is not so much as being grammatically incorrect, but could have been more clear if it were as ‘share from sale of leasehold