Pawan Kumar Sethia, Dakshin Dinajpur v. ITO, Ward - 1, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur

I.T.A NO. 22/KOL/2011-BKH 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : KOLKATA () . . ! . '. # '$ ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI B.R.MITTAL JM & HONBLE SRI B. K. HALDAR AM] !% / I.T.A NO. 22/KOL/2011 &' () / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 PAWAN KUMAR SETHIA VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER PAN: AADFP 9933A WARD 1 BALURGHAT (+ /APPELLANT ) (-.+ / RESPONDENT ) + / FOR THE APPELLANT : / / SHRI S.L KOCHAR LD.AR -.+ / FOR THE RESPONDENT : / / SHRI S.S KUMAR LD.DR '0 / ORDER .'.# '$ SHRI B.K.HALDAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) JALPAIGURI DA TED 19/10/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8 182/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE ALLEGED GROUND O F UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 2. FOR THAT THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELL ANT IN THE MATTER OF DISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION AT RS.4 75 254 /- AS AGAINST ESTIMATE OF RS.4 83A36/- BY THE DVO OUGHT TO HAVE B EEN ACCEPTED. 3. 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.AR FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATION OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS SPREAD OVER FOUR AYS. THE LAST BEING AY 2005- 06. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT EARLIER YEAR S DISPUTES ON THE ISSUE HAVE BEEN SETTLED AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD.CIT(A). EVEN OTHER WISE THE VARIATION IN THE VALUATION RELATING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS LESS TH AN 2% OF THE INVESTMENT DISCLOSED. THUS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT. I.T.A NO. 22/KOL/2011-BKH 2 4. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECOR D. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED B Y THE REVENUE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE FIND NO REASON TO SUSTAIN THE IMPUGNED A DDITION. THUS THE ADDITION OF RS.8 182/- IS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. # '0 $1' 2 1& 3 #4 5$ 09-02-2011 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09-02-2011 SD/- SD/- [ . . ] [ . ' . # '$ ] (B.R.MITTAL ) (B. K. HALDAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (5$) DATED :09-02-2011 *PP 67 &89 : /SR.P.S. '0 ; -< ='<(>- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. + /APPELLANT- SHRI PAWAN KUMAR SETHIA HILLI D DINA JPUR. 2 -.+ / RESPONDENT : I.T.O W 1 BALURGHAT 3. 0&/ THE CIT 4. 0& ()/ THE CIT(A) KOLKATA. 5. E3 -&/ DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA .< -/ TRUE COPY '0&1/ BY ORDER F !9 / DEPUTY REGISTRAR