ITO, New Delhi v. Smt. Seema Gupta, New Delhi

ITA 3274/DEL/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 327420114 RSA 2009
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3274/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant ITO, New Delhi
Respondent Smt. Seema Gupta, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 11-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 11-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 11-01-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 20-07-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN I.T.A. NO.3274/DEL./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) ITO WARD 40(4) VS. SMT. SEEMA GUPTA NEW DELHI. 362 ARUNCHAL APPTT. SECTOR 6 DWARKA NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AJJPG1635K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K. GUPTA. REVENUE BY : SHRI B.KISHORE DR ORDER PER K.D. RANJAN AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR AY 2005-06 ARISES O UT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXX NEW DELHI. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN: I) ACCEPTING FRESH EVIDENCE IN CONTRAVENTION OF RUL E 46A OF I.T. RULES. II) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.8 00 000/- RIGHTLY M ADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. III) THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ALTER AMEND ADD OR SUBSTITUTE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS.8 00 000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. THE F ACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS.8 00 000/- IN TATA MUTUAL FUND IN 4 PARTS OF RS.2 LAKH EACH ON 29.10.2004 WHICH WERE DULY REFLECTED I N THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS FROM REDEMPTION PROCEE DS OF INVESTMENT WITH KOTAK MAHINDRA MUTUAL FUND AMOUNTING TO RS.8 81 538/-. T HE AO ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT O F RS.8 00 000/- IN TATA MUTUAL FUND ON 22.11.2004 MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8 00 000/- IGN ORING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE I.T.A. NO.3274/DEL./2009 (A.Y. 2005-06) 2 ASSESSEE THAT FUNDS HAVE COME FROM REDEMPTION PROCE EDS OF UNITS OF KOTAL MAHINDRA MUTUAL FUND. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN TATA MUTUAL FUND ON 29.10.2004 BY WAY OF 4 CHEQUES WHERE AS AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON 22.11.2004 AND THEREFORE T HE INVESTMENT MADE ON 22.11.2004 WAS A SEPARATE INVESTMENT THE SOURCE THEREOF WAS N OT EXPLAINED. THE AO ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.8 00 000/- AS UNDISCLOSED IN COME. 3. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD M ADE ADDITION ON TECHNICAL DISCREPANCY AND HAD FAILED TO CONSIDER THE CLARIFIC ATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENT IN UNITS OF TATA MUTUAL FUNDS OF RS. 8 LAKHS. SINCE THE ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN DATES OF INVEST MENTS THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS THAT AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.8 00 000/- IN TA TA MUTUAL FUND ON 22.11.2004 WHEREAS AS PER THE RECORD THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON 29.10.2004. THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ASSESS EE HAD NOT INVESTED RS.8 00 000/- LAKH OUT OF REDEMPTION PROCEEDS OF INVESTMENTS MADE WITH KOTAK MAHINDRA MUTUAL FUND WHICH WERE REDEEMED FOR RS.8 81 538/-. SINCE THE A DDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE D ATES AS PER ACTUAL INVESTMENT AND THE DATE CONTAINED IN AIR INFORMATION IN OUR CONSIDERE D OPINION THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION. 5. AS REGARDS THE GROUND TAKEN BY REVENUE THAT CIT (A) HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WE LL AS WELL AS ORDER OF CIT(A) IT IS APPARENT THAT CIT(A) HAD ALLOWED RELIEF ON THE BASI S OF SAME REPLY/EVIDENCE WHICH WAS AVAILABLE ON ASSESSMENT RECORD. NO ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE WAS ADMITTED IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A AND HENCE THIS GROUND DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A. NO.3274/DEL./2009 (A.Y. 2005-06) 3 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT AFTER THE CONCLUS ION OF THE HEARING ON 11.01.2010 ITSELF. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (K.D. RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED JAN. 11 2010. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXX NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT