Smt. Natasha Mahindra, Bangalore v. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 975/BANG/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 97521114 RSA 2009
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 975/BANG/2009
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Natasha Mahindra, Bangalore
Respondent ITO, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 01-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 01-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 30-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 30-03-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 23-10-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.975(BNG)/09 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SMT. NATASHA MAHINDRA THE GALLOP AAVALAHALLI ESTATE YELAHANKA BANGALORE. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(3) BANGALORE. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. C.O. NO.70(BNG)/2009 (IN ITA NO.975(BNG)/09) (BY REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANOJ D. PUKALE ADVOCATE. REVENUE BY : SMT. V.S. SREELEKHA ADDL. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX. O R D E R PER DR. O.K.NARAYANAN : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2005-06. THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V BANGALORE DT.16.6.2009 AND ARISE OUT O F THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE SMT. NATASHA MAHINDRA DAUGHTER OF MRS.BETTY MAHINDRA WAS DOING HER HIGHER STUDIES IN AUSTRALIA DURING TH E PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE HER MOTHER HAD GIVEN HER FINANCIAL HELP TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10 43 600 TO MEET THE EDUCATION EXPENSES. THIS AMOUNT WAS PUT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT A ND THE ANNUAL REPORT ITA NO.975(BNG)/09 C.O.NO.70(BNG)/09 - 2 - FURNISHED BY THE BANK TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BROUGHT OUT THE CASE STATING THAT THIS MUCH AMOUNT OF MONEY WAS PUT IN H ER BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OF FICER TREATED THIS AMOUNT AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BROUGHT TO TAX. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WAS THAT IT WAS NOT HER INCOME AS SUCH B UT FINANCIAL HELP PROVIDED BY HER MOTHER TO DO THE STUDIES IN AUSTRALIA AT THE RE LEVANT POINT OF TIME. IN FIRST APPEAL THE CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AN D THEREFORE THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. NORMALLY WHEN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE WOULD HAVE NO CASE TO FILE A CR OSS OBJECTION. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE REVENUE WANTED TO RAISE OBJECTION S REGARDING CERTAIN GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER APPEAL AND THEREFORE AS ADVISED THE REVENUE FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE APPEAL. 4. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED REASONABLE MATERIALS BEFORE T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO PROVE HER CLAIM THAT THE MONEY WAS PUT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT BY HER MOTHER. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THI S FACT AND THEY WERE BY AND LARGE GUIDED BY TECHNICALITIES. IT IS SEEN THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE POSSIBLE INCOME AVAILABLE I N THE HANDS OF ASSESSEES MOTHER SO THAT THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE MOTHE R TO THE DAUGHTER COULD BE ITA NO.975(BNG)/09 C.O.NO.70(BNG)/09 - 3 - PRIMA FACIE ACCEPTED ALONG WITH OTHER SUPPORTING EV IDENCES. AS THE ENTIRE CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED PROPERLY IN OUR OPINION IT IS NE CESSARY THAT THE CASE MUST BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ARRIVING AT A LAWFUL CONCLUSION. THEREFORE THE FILE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO HEAR THE ASSESSEE AGAIN AND EVALUATE THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND COME TO A LAWFUL CONCLUSION WHETHER THE SAID AM OUNT HAS TO BE TREATED AS ASSESSEES INCOME OR NOT. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY DEL AY TACTICS AND PRESENT BEFORE HIM ALL MATERIALS WHICH SHE MAY LIKE TO RELY ON. 5. AS THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AND REMITTE D BACK TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVENUE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY TH E 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2010 AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (DR.O.K.N ARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE DT.01/04/2010. ITA NO.975(BNG)/09 C.O.NO.70(BNG)/09 - 4 - COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. CIT(APPEALS) 4. CIT 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE ITAT BANGALORE. 7. GUARD FILE ITAT NEW DELHI. * GPR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE.