AMIT KESHAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The sole ground raised by the assessee is against the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in confirming the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer.

Brief facts of this case are that the assessee filed his return of income of Rs.4,68,380/- on 16.07.2009 under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession” and “Income from Other Sources”. Later the case was taken up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with the AIR, which revealed that there was an investment in Mutual Fund to the tune of ./2014 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 5 Rs.80,00,000/- (FMP) and as per CIB information, another investment was made in Mutual Fund (Rs.25,00,00/- as per confirmation with account statement obtained under section 133(6) from CAMS (Computer Age- Management Service (P) Limited), the Mutual Fund Authority. The assessee was able to convince the Assessing Officer in respect of Rs.80,00,000/-. However, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to prove the source of Rs.25,00,000/-, which was revealed by the CIB information in addition of Rs.80,00,000/- and consequently the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.25,00,000/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who was pleased to confirm the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeal), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A.R. took our attention to page no. 13 of the paper book, which is AIR transactions report, and contended that on 16.06.2008, there was only one transaction of Rs.25,00,000/- and thereafter he took our attention to page no. 14 of the paper book, wherein CIB Old Code Transactions was shown and took our attention to the fact that there were two entries of Rs.25,00,000/- and also took our attention to page no. 33 of the paper book, which is a letter issued by the BNP Paribas Mutual Fund to the Assessing Officer dated 02.04.2013, wherein they clarified that due to global destructing, the name of Scheme in which the assessee invested on 16.06.2008 has changed its name. The ld. A.R. also took our attention to page no. 34 of the paper book, which is account statement in respect to the assessee, wherein it showed that there was only one transaction in respect of Rs.25,00,000/- and thereafter the ld. A.R. took our attention to page no. 37, wherein also the BNP Paribas Mutual Fund had written a letter to the assessee informing about the change in the Scheme as above stated and it has categorically stated as under in respect to change in name of the Funds as on 16th June, 2008 as reproduced below :- ./2014 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Page 3 of 5 ./2014 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Page 4 of 5 5. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the orders of A.O. and the ld. CIT(Appeals) and does not want us to interfere in the impugned order.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The entire dispute in the case of assessee is in relation to the involvement of an extra entry given in the CIB Report. In the CIB report, transactions of Rs.25,00,000/- had been shown on 16.06.2008 twice and the transaction reference was shown as FTP Ser 12 Plan B Ins Cal. Qly. Div. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation and other transactions shown on the same date as FTP Ser 12 Plan B Ins Cal. Qly. Div. We note that the assessee had consistently contended that the information on which the Assessing Officer sought to tax Rs.25 lakhs was due to the confusion caused by the CIB report was nothing but only that of one investment of Rs.25,00,000/- on 16.06.2008 for which the source was clearly demonstrated before the Assessing Officer, which he accepted. The case of the Assessing Officer was that the source of Rs.25,00,000/- was inclusive of the transactions of Rs.80,00,000/-, which the assessee was able to prove. We take note that in the AIR information as on date 16.06.2008 there is only one entry of Rs.25 lakhs and the Assessing Officer has picked up the CIB Report in which another entry of investment in Mutual Fund on the same date is reflected. Now since the BNP Paribas Mutual Fund have been able to clarify the true position based on the extract (supra) and that has been produced before us, so in the interest of justice we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remand the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the documents that has been produced before us and if the contention of the assessee is correct that the transaction of Rs.25,00,000/- is one and the same which was made on the same date, i.e. on 16.06.2008 and since BNP Paribas Mutual Fund has clearly clarified that there was change in the name of fund dated 16th June, 2008 and with the clarification given by the BNP Paribas Mutual Fund which is reproduced above, the Assessing Officer may verify the consistent contention of the assessee and if it is found that the contention ./2014 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Page 5 of 5 of the assessee is genuine, then no addition is warranted. With this observation, we remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh by providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that the assessee is at liberty to file any documentary evidence in support of its case on the issue before the Assessing Officer, which the Assessing Officer shall verify and decide the issue in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on December 20, 2016.