Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA & SHRI PAWAN SINGH
Assessee by : Shri Narendra Mangal (AR) Department by : Shri Dr. Sandeep Goel (DR) Date of hearing : 21.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2016 O R D E R
PER PAWAN SINGH, JM:
The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-26, Mumbai dated 31.03.2015 in respect of Assessment Year(AY)-2008-09 on the following grounds:
1. Ground 1: The learned Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 148 on the basis of wrong facts and without any tangible material. Thus, the assessment under section 147 is void-ab-initio
2. Ground 2: The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law by not supplying to the Appellant, copy of reasons recorded under section 148(2). Consequently, the assessment order may be held as void.
3. Ground 3: The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law by passing assessment order without first passing a speaking order against the objections made by the Appellant against the validity of the notice served on him under section 148. Consequently, the assessment order may be held as void.
4. Ground 4: The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law in adding the balance of jewellery in the balance sheet of the Appellant to the total income under section 69A.
5. Ground 5: income under section 69B.
2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income for AY 2008-09 on 30.07.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 4,11,130/-. The return for this year was processed u/s. 143(1) and no assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceeding for AY 2009-10, the AO observed that in AY 2008-09 the assessee has shown jewellery for the first time in its balance-sheet at Rs. 6566/- and granted a loan of Rs. 74,23,973/- to M/s Jindal Enterprises. During the course of assessment proceeding, assessee has explained that the jewellery is received from members of HUF and same was sold by HUF. The sale consideration was advanced to Jindal Enterprises which is proprietary business firm of HUF member. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and the assessment for the year under consideration was re-opened. In the assessment the AO made an addition of Rs. 71,89,782/- and order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was passed. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success, hence the present appeal is filed before us.
We have heard AR for assessee and DR for Revenue and perused the material available on record. AR for assessee argued that no fair and proper opportunity was given by AO nor the document furnished by assessee was considered while framing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Ld. AR of the assessee further argued that First Appellate Authority (FAA) has also passed a non-speaking order without considering the evidence furnished by assessee. Ld. DR for Revenue argued that no balance-sheet is available for AY 2007-08, no such document was filed before the AO. Assessee has not discharged his onus before the AO. The assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that AY and the assessee cannot find fault in the re-assessment order.
We have considered the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record. We have noticed that assessee has filed Paper Book which includes the Profit & Loss A/c, balance-sheet, copy of acknowledgment of return for AY 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09, computation of capital gain, PAN Card along with declaration about the submission of documents before the authorities below, except Family Arrangement Letter. We have noticed that AO in its order recorded that “neither the assessee nor his representative attended and submitted the evidences to prove that the jewellery has purchased in the earlier year.....assessee has not submitted any evidence that jewellery purchased in the earlier year or assessment year under consideration, therefore the same is treated as jewellery purchased from undisclosed source and same should be added to the income by applying section 69A of the Act”.
The ld. CIT(A) has not given any reason except sustaining the order of AO observing as under: “7.2 During the course of the assessment proceeding AO observed that appellant had shown full value of sale consideration of Rs.71,89,782/-. From the said sale consideration, indexed cost of acquisition was claimed at Rs. 77,52,491/-.AO further noted that no proof of acquisition of jewellery was submitted by the assessee. He therefore, added the sum as unexplained investment in jewellery. 7.3 It was stated before me that said jewellery was received by the appellant during the marriage of February 19, 1963. Apart from this general statement, no other evidence is produced before me in support of acquisition of the jewellery. 7.4 In the absence of any material on record in support of acquisition of said jewellery, I hold that AO was justified in adding the sum of Rs.71,89,782/- to the total income of the appellant. This ground is dismissed.”
The perusal of order of authorities below reveals that the document furnished by assessee was not considered as there is no reference of such document. Rather the authorities below concluded that no document (material) in support of acquisition of jewellery is on record. Considering the above observation and the documentary evidence filed before us, we deem it appropriate to restore all the issues to the file of AO to decide the matter afresh. The AO shall provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully co-operate with the AO. With these observations the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.