SHRI BRAHMANANAD B. KARANJEKAR ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), NAGPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
ITA no.9/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Shri Brahmanand B. Karanjekar 10, North Ambazari Road ……………. Appellant Corporation Colony, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – ACKPK2043H v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–5(2), Nagpur Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Date of Hearing – 08/08/2024 Date of Order – 21/08/2024
O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 13/12/2022, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10.
The proceedings before us in this appeal are the second round of appeal which was filed by the assessee.
When the case was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee to assist the Bench and argue the matter. There is no application for adjournment. However, the Bench was of the view to proceed to dispose off
Shri Brahmanand B. Karanjekar ITA no.9/Nag./2023
the appeal qua the assessee appellant after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record. 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–
“1] Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by A.Ο. amounting to Rs.4,46,000/- u/s.69C (unexplained expenditure). 2] Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs.5,77,755/- (unexplained cash credit). 3] Learned CIT(A) erred in not properly applying his mind while considering additions made by the A.O. 4] Various notices issued by the CIT(A) were not received by the Assessee, as alleged in the order of Ld. CIT(A). 5] Appellant craves to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing, if necessary.”
Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 15/07/2019, declaring total income of ` 5,50,922. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was completed by the Assessing Officer on 28/12/2011, assessing total income at ` 30,22,677, by making addition of ` 24,71,755, on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act dated 28/12/2011, the assessee had filed appeal before CIT(A), who, vide order dated 12/02/2013, had dismissed the appeal of the assessee and affirmed the addition. Further, the assessee again filed appeal before ITAT against the order passed by CIT(A). The Tribunal, vide its order dated 12/06/2015, has set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and remitted the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with following direction:–
Shri Brahmanand B. Karanjekar ITA no.9/Nag./2023
"Upon careful consideration, we are the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences now being submitted by the assessee. Accordingly we remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer" after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee..."
The Assessing Officer, while giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal, fresh opportunities were granted to the assessee by issuing notices under section 143(2) of the Act and after considering the additional evidences as well as written submissions, submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has made the following additions as under:–
Undisclosed H.P. income ` 60,264 Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C ` 4,46,000 Unexplained cash credits ` 5,77,755
Once again, the assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, filed appeal before the first appellate authority.
The observations of the learned CIT(A) while dismissing the assessee’s appeal are as follows:–
“The Assessee has filed the details submission and various documents at the time of hearing. Assessee has explained his case in great details, but the A.O. has not accepted assessee submission and not consider various documents and he has added amounting to Rs.4,46,000/- as a Unexplained Expenditure u/s. 69C. Similarly he has added amounting to Rs.5,77,755/- as a Unexplained Cash Credit. The assessee has not accepted the same addition. 7.0 Decision on grounds of appeal and reasons thereof:- In this appeal 4 grounds were raised. Ground no. 3 is general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication. Ground no.4 is residual in nature and in entire appeal proceedings, no ground has been amended or added, is worth dismissal and is dismissed. Ground no. 1 is raised against addition of Rs.4,46,000/- as unexplained expenditure U/s 69C. 7.1 The Ld. AO had discussed the impugned addition in Para-8 of the assessment order, which is discussed is as under:–
Shri Brahmanand B. Karanjekar ITA no.9/Nag./2023
“8. Addition of Rs.4,46,000/-: Further, the assessee has spent amount of Rs.4,46,000/- on stamp duty and registration fees on the above stated immovable property at the time of registration. The assessee was asked to explain the source of this amount which he was spent on registration and stamp duty. The assessee has explained that the said amount Rs. 4,65,000/- was received as loan from Shri Somdatta Karajekar. He was student that time in Oklohama University and was also in job and his salary was Rs. 5354 dollors i.e. about 2,30,222/-. He was also-getting education loan and scholarship from university. The assessee was asked to produce Shri. Somdatta Karajekar for cross verification. The assessee has not produce to Shri. Somdatta Karajekar of verification. The explanation of the assessee is not acceptable, the person who earned Rs.2,30,222/- for the year, how can he transfer Rs. 4,65,000/- in the assessee's bank account. Further, the education loan and scholarship received for education purpose, how he can advance such amount as unsecured loan to assessee for investment in property. The explanation of the assessee is not acceptable hence the amount of 4,46,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources.” 7.2 I have carefully gone through the assessment order, grounds of appeal and statement of facts filed by the appellant. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has not brought out any facts to controvert the above findings of AO. Various notices were issued to the appellant during appellate proceedings also, but no reply or evidences or facts were submitted to controvert the findings of A.O. As per the direction of Hon'ble ITAT, ample opportunities were provided to the appellant to submit the additional evidences. But appellant has not submitted any explanation or evidence to controvert the finding of the A.O. In view of the above facts it is clear that appellant has nothing more to submit in this regard. Hence, I am of the view that there is no substance and fact in support of the ground of appeal submitted by the appellant. Therefore, Ground no. 1 of the appeal is dismissed.”
We have heard the arguments of the learned D.R. Representative, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the loan has been taken by the assessee from his daughter, who in turn had taken loan from Bank. The transaction was through banking channel. The source of source is also established and it is a case of family transaction. Consequently, in view of the peculiarity of the circumstances, we are inclined to overturn the order passed by the learned CIT(A) by allowing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.
Shri Brahmanand B. Karanjekar ITA no.9/Nag./2023
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/08/2024
Sd/- Sd/- V. DURGA RAO K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
NAGPUR, DATED: 21/08/2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur
