MOHINI V. KALANTRI, MUMBAI v. ASST CIT 13(2), MUMBAI

ITA 416/MUM/2016 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 41619914 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAMPK1985A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 416/MUM/2016
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
Appellant MOHINI V. KALANTRI, MUMBAI
Respondent ASST CIT 13(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2017
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 28-01-2016
Judgment Text
INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -BBENCH MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RAMLAL NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A./416/MUM/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT. MOHINI V. KALANTARI 2 WAHENDNA APT.-75 HILL ROAD BANDRA (W) MUMBAI-400 050. PAN:AAMPK 1985 A VS. ACIT - 13(2) ROOM NO.421 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MAHARSHI KARVE MARG MUMBAI-400 020. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI SUMAN KUMAR-SR.-DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.C. TIWARI/ RUTUJA PAWAR / DATE OF HEARING: 28/11/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:28/11/2017 1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961(ACT) . . . . . . . . / PER B.R. BASKARAN AM - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND IT RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE (AR) URGED A LEGAL GROUND THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE RE-OPENE D ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RE -OPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON CERTAIN REASONS BUT DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION TH EREON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING AN A LTOGETHER NEW ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE D ECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JE T AIRWAYS (I) LTD. (2010) 195 TAXMAN 117 (BOM) THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 416/M/16 MOHINI V. KALANTARI 2 3. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE (DR) AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS RE-OPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- 2. THE REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 1 48 OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 IN YOUR CASE FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE GIVEN AS UNDER- INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (1) AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 25 000/- RECEIVED FROM M/S. POONAM SONI SIGNATURE CINE (P) LTD. AS TECHNICAL FEES HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS IT IS NEITHER SHOWN IN THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT NOR IN THE P & L A/C. NOR BROUGHT TO TAX. (2) IT IS SEEN FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT THAT T HE FOLLOWING INCOME HAS NOT BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX:- (A) BANK INTEREST : RS. 31 3 81/- (B) BOB BROKERAGE : RS. 4 220 /- (C) PROGRESSIVE SHARE BROKERAGE : RS. 1 12 271/- R S. 1 47 872/- (3) BASED ON THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ON COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE OF ONLY RS L 13 11 626/- AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS. THE REMAINING INVESTMENTS AMOUNTING TO ABOUT RS. 1 CRORE WHICH WERE NOT SHOWN AND WHICH WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE TILL 31.03.2006 HAS APP ARENTLY ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. (4) CERTAIN UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 55.58 LAKHS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AFTER NOVEMBER 2005 TILL MARCH 2006 WERE OMITTED TO BE TAXED. 3.1. WE NOTICE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT BY ASSESSING DEEMED DIVIDEND O F RS.38.00 LAKHS U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THUS WE NOTICE THAT THE A O HAS MADE AN ALTOGETHER NEW ADDITION WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITION ON THE REA SONS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE AO TO INDEPENDENTLY ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME WHEN HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ITEMS FOR WHICH HE HAD INITI ALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SINCE THE C ONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT (SUPRA) WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT H AVE MADE ADDITION OF RS.38.00 LAKHS U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IN THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE 416/M/16 MOHINI V. KALANTARI 3 ADDITION ON LEGAL GROUNDS WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESS ARY TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS URGED ON MERITS. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREA TED AS ALLOWED. ! . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH NOVEMBER 2017. '#$ %&'()#*+ 28 2017 & - SD/- SD/- ( / RAM LAL NEGI ) ( / B.R. BASKARAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 28.11.2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR B BENCH ITAT MUMBAI / . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR /ITAT MUMBAI.