MAMATA DAS,KORAPUT vs. ITO, JEYPORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 210/CTK/2014Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 May 2017AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the addition, noting that the assessee failed to provide corroborating evidence like bank accounts or sale receipts to explain the source of the investment. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision involving a similar issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee contributed Rs. 3 lakhs as capital to a partnership firm. The Assessing Officer treated this as an unexplained investment and made an addition to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the investment made by the assessee in the partnership firm was sufficiently explained. Whether the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition as unexplained investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI N.S SAINI

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-

Berhampur, dated 24.2.2014, for the assessment year 2009-2010.

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in

confirming the addition of Rs.3 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer as

investments made by the assessee in the partnership firm M/s. Sunley

Jewellers, Koraput.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower

authorities and materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the

care are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has

contributed Rs.3 lakhs during the year under appeal towards her capital in

2 ITA No. 210/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 09- 201 0

the firm M/s. Sunley Jewllers, Koraput. The assessee during the course of

assessment proceedings, filed capital account for the last three assessment

years viz; 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-2010 for the year ended on

31.3.2007. The assessee had shown opening capital of Rs.1,92,468/-

which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it was

an afterthought as the assessee had not filed his return of income for

assessment year 2006-07 and, therefore, he did not accept the capital

investment of Rs.3 lakhs made by the assessee as capital contribution in

the partnership firm M/s. Sunely Jewellers, Koraput and made addition to

the income of the assessee as unexplained investment.

4.

On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer

on the ground that the assessee did not produce corroborating evidence

such as copy of bank account or receipt of any money from sale of any

investments or property to support its contention that she had enough cash

with him to make the investment.

5.

In the above background of the case, ld A.R. of the assessee

submitted that the issue covered in favour of the revenue and against the

assessee by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case other

partnership firm namely Bhagaban Nath in ITA No.205/CTK/2014 for the

assessment year 2009-2010 order dated 28.3.2017.

6.

I find that the Tribunal in the case of Bhagaban Nath (supra) held

that the assessee had sales proceeds of house of Rs.21 lakhs and from that

the assessee could explain the investment to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs but

3 ITA No. 210/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 09- 201 0

could not explain the investment of Rs.1 lakh and, therefore, the addition

to the extent of Rs.1 lakh was sustained by the Tribunal. In the present

case also, I find that there is no such receipts from sale of house property

by the assessee to explain the investment of Rs.3 lakhs made in the

partnership firm towards capital contribution. Hence, I find no good and

justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby

confirmed and ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26 /05/2017 in the presence of parties. Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 26 /05/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Mamata Das, W/O- Pradip Kumar Das, PHD Colony, Koraput, Odisha 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward-2, Jeypore 3. The CIT(A) Berhampur 4. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →