Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan
Date of concluding the hearing : August 17, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : September 02, 2016
O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :- These two appeals, one filed by the assessee being Revenue being are cross appeals, which are directed against the order ./2013 Assessment year: 2004-2005 & I.T. A. No. 2817/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 2 of 6 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Kolkata dated 10.09.2013.
First we shall take up the appeal of the assessee being (1) For that the appellant having satisfactorily explained the opening capital for the AY 2004-05, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the same and ought not to have confirmed addition of Rs.18,43,916/- as unexplained opening capital.
(2) For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanation of the appellant and ought not to have confirmed addition of Rs.2,74,826/- on the alleged grounds.
(3) For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming additions of Rs.81,631/- and Rs.42,412/- made by the AO on alleged grounds.
(4) For that further grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed to be taken at the time of hearing of the appeal.
3. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has not pressed Grounds No. 2, 3 & 4 raised in the appeal of the assessee. The same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
4. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal relating to the sustenance by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the additions of Rs.34,10,586/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed investment to the extent of Rs.18,43,916/-, the material facts relevant to this issue are as follows:- The assessee is a Doctor, who is employed with the Government. Her husband Shri Sudipta Ghosh is also a Government employee. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the premises of Shri Sudipta Ghosh by CBI on 18.05.2009. On the basis of information received from the Assessing Officer of Shri Sudipta Ghosh, the assessment of the ./2013 Assessment year: 2004-2005 & I.T. A. No. 2817/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 3 of 6 assessee was reopened by the Assessing Officer. In response to notice issued under section 148 by the Assessing Officer, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 09.05.2011 declaring her total income for the year under consideration at Rs.2,66,920/- as against the total income of Rs.2,31,248/- declared earlier in the return of income originally filed on 22.06.2004. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished the details of her assets as on 31.03.2004 as per the requirement of the Assessing Officer as under:- 1. Cash in hand Rs.35,817/- 2. SBI (Avishek & Kajal) Rs.59,778/- 3. SBI (A. Naug/Kajal Ghosh/P.K. Rs.41,148/- Naug) 4. SBI (Kajal Ghosh) Rs.36,392/- 5. SBI (Kajal and Sudipta Ghosh) Rs.1,00,080/- 6. Fixed Deposit Rs.8,05,000/- 7. Fixed Deposit (HDFC) Rs.1,00,000/- 8. Fixed Deposit (SBI) Rs.7,85,000/- 9. P.K. Naug Rs.64,800/- 10. Sudipta Ghosh Rs.2,16,495/- 11. HDFC Bond Rs.60,000/- 12. ICICI Tax Saving Bond Rs.50,000/- 13. IDBI Tax Saving Bond Rs.5,000/- 14. KVP Rs.3,40,000/- 15. MIS Rs.2,55,000/- 16. NSC Rs.2,06,000/- 17. UTI MIP Rs.1,00,000/- 18. UTI US Rs.1,02,000/- 19. SBI Mutual Fund Rs.48,000/- TOTAL AMOUNT IS NEAR ABOUT Rs.34,10,586/- ./2013 Assessment year: 2004-2005 & I.T. A. No. 2817/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 4 of 6 Since the above assets were not reflected either in the return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration or even in the returns of income filed for the earlier years and the explanation offered by the assessee in respect thereof was not found satisfactory by him, the Assessing Officer added the total value of assets owned by the assessee as on 31.03.2004 at Rs.34,10,586/- to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 29.12.2012.
5. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) disputing, inter alia, the addition of Rs.34,10,586/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) restricted the said addition made by the Assessing Officer to Rs.18,43,916/- after holding that the following assets/investment could not be added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained for the year under consideration:- “(a) Bank balances @ Sl. No. 8, 9, 10, 11 (Total Rs.2,60,357/-) duly supported by relevant Bank Statements.
(b) KVP Rs.3,40,000/- help prior to 31.03.2003 as per information u/s 133(6) received by the AO of the husband of the assessee.
(c) Fixed Deposits Rs.6,98,082/- held before 31.03.2003 vide evidences submitted to the A.O.
(d) PPF Rs.3,72,883/- as per Pass Book as on 31.03.2003”. Still aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The limited contention raised by the ld. counsel for the assessee is that even out of the total assets and ./2013 Assessment year: 2004-2005 & I.T. A. No. 2817/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 5 of 6 investment held by the assessee as on 31.03.2004 and treated as unexplained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of Rs.18,43,916/-, some Fixed Deposits of the value of Rs.3,80,600/- were held by the assessee before 31.03.2003 and the same, therefore, cannot be added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration as unexplained investment. He has submitted that the information relating to these Fixed Deposits held before 31.03.2003 is obtained by the assessee after passing of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and has urged that this matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of this information obtained by the assessee. Since the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection in this regard, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the new claim made by the assessee that the Fixed Deposits of the value of Rs.3,80,600/- added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment for the year under consideration were actually held even before 31.03.2003. The Assessing Officer shall verify this new claim and allow appropriate relief to the assessee in accordance with law. The balance addition as sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue is, however, confirmed. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
As regards the Revenue’s appeal being the ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, has submitted that the tax effect involved in this appeal of the Revenue is less than the revised monetary limit fixed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 at Rs.10,00,000/- for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal and this position clearly evident from the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal is not disputed even by the ld. D.R. In Circular No. 21/2015 (supra) recently issued by the CBDT, the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been increased to Rs.10,00,000/- and as clarified in the said Circular, ./2013 Assessment year: 2004-2005 & I.T. A. No. 2817/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 6 of 6 the said monetary limit is applicable retrospectively even to the appeals pending before the Tribunal. The CBDT has also instructed that such pending appeals below this specified tax limit of Rs.10,00,000/- may be withdrawn/ not pressed. Keeping in view the instruction given by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, which is squarely applicable in the present case, the appeal filed by the Revenue in this case is treated as withdrawn/not pressed and dismissed accordingly. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.