Mrs. Subhra Mahanta, Bankura v. I.T.O, Ward - 3, Bankura, Bankura

ITA 460/KOL/2010 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2010

Appeal Details

RSA Number 46023514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AEMPM0416J
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 460/KOL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant Mrs. Subhra Mahanta, Bankura
Respondent I.T.O, Ward - 3, Bankura, Bankura
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 23-04-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 03-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI D. K. TYAGI JM & HONBLE SRI C . D. RAO AM] I.T.A. NO.460/KOL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 MRS. SUBHRA MAHANTA -VS- INCOME-TAX OFFICER WD- 3 BANKURA (PA NO.AEMPM 0416 J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SRI D. K. SEN RESPONDENT BY : SRI P. KOLHE O R D E R PER D. K. TYAGI JM: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DURGAPUR DATED 15.10.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2001-02 ON THE SOLE GROUND OF CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 06 500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSIT. 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 38 DAYS AND A CONDO NATION PETITION HAS BEEN FILED. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING TH E CONDONATION PETITION WE FIND THAT THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN F ILING THIS APPEAL AND THE SAME IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL HAS BEEN HEARD ON MERIT. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO ADDED A SUM OF RS.1 06 500/- IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN BANK FIXED DEPOSITS MAINTAINED WITH UBI BISHNUPUR AND SBI BISHNUPUR SINCE THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION TO THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT OF THESE FDS AND SIMPLY STATED THAT THE FDS WERE DISCLOSED IN THE TAX RETURNS. IN APPEA L THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THIS ACTION OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERATING HIS SAME SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITI ES ARE HIGH EXCESSIVE ARBITRARY AND BAD IN LAW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THREE FD5 OF RS .18 400/- RS.27 600/- AND RS.27 600/- WERE PURCHASED ON 25.7.2000 FOR A PERIO D OF SIX MONTH AND MATURED IT WAS STATED THAT AS THE PURCHASE AND MATURITY WERE DURIN G THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR ITSELF THE FDS WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. FU RTHER IT WAS STATED THAT AS REGARDS THE FDS OF RS.37 000/- AND RS.43 700/- INVESTED IN SBI BISHNUPUR WERE HELD JOINTLY WITH THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND 50% SHARE OF EACH WAS MO RE OR LESS REFLECTED IN THE CLOSING 2 CASH BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE LASTLY URGED BEFOR E THE BENCH TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH TO CONFIRM THE SAME. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT THE M ATTER AS UNDER : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. FIRSTLY THE EXPLANA TION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY KIND OF EVIDENCE BY WAY O F PHOTO COPIES OF THE FDS OR CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK ETC. SECONDLY EVEN IF TH E PURCHASE AND MATURITY DATE WERE WITHIN THE FINANCIAL YEAR ITSELF THE PROCEEDS OF T HE MATURITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET BY WAY OF BANK BALANCE OR CASH IN HAND. THE CASH IN HAND IN THE BALANCE SHEET IS ONLY RS.52 366/- AND THAT INCLUDES THE BANK BALANCES ALSO. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THIR DLY EVEN IF THE FDS HAD MATURED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR ITSELF THE INTEREST SHOU LD HAVE OFFERED FOR TAX WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. FURTHER AS REGARDS THE EXPLANATION THAT THE SBI BISHNUPUR INVESTMENT THAT THE FDS IN CLOSING CASH BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE THE EDS DID NOT MATURE BEFORE THE LAST DATE OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE FDS AMOUNTING TO RS.39 200/- AND RS .19 500/- WAS ABSOLUTELY OWNED BY MS. SEEMA MAHANTA AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF T AXING THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED EVIDENCE DID NOT ARISE. HOW EVER THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF SEEMA MAHANTA HAS ALSO NOT BEEN EXPLAI NED. IN LIGHT OF THESE FACTS I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FDS AND INTEREST EARNED THERE FROM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US DID NOT PRODUCE ANY COGENT MATERIAL/EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHEL D. THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. 6. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23. 4.10 SD/- SD/- (C. D. RAO) (D. K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23RD APRIL 2010 COPY TO : 1. MS. SUBHRA MAHANTA W/O GURUDAS MAHANTA PO BISHN UPUR DIST. BANKURA. 2. ITO WARD-3 BANKURA 3. CIT(A) DURGAPUR 4. CIT 5. D.R. ITAT KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR JD.(SR.P.S.) I.T.AT. KOLKATA