IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "C" NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR
ITA Nos. 1547 & 1548/Del/2013
Asstt. Yr: 2006-07
Aloke Anand Vs. Income-tax Officer,
C/0 Bhatia & Bhatia, CAs Ward 27(2), New Delhi.
12, Central Land, Bengali Market,
New Delhi-110001.
PAN: AAFHA 4302 Q
( Appellant ) ( Respondent )
Appellant by : Shri Rajan Bhatia CA
Respondent by : Shri Sameer Sharma Sr. DR
ORDER
PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M :
These are two assessee's appeals one against quantum and the
other against the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
relating to A.Y. 2006-07.
2. In quantum appeal, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of
addition made on account of investment of Rs. 2,00,000/- in HDFC Mutual
fund as income from undisclosed sources.
3. Brief facts are: The assessee is claimed to be regularly assessed to tax
and return of income was filed. The assessment resulted in ex parte as the
assessee did not receive proper notices. The assessing officer found that the
assessee had made investment of Rs. 2 lacs in HDFC Mutual Funds. As the
2 ITA 1547 & 1548/Del/2013
2006-07 & 2007-08
assessment was ex parte, the above amount was added u/s 68. Aggrieved,
assessee preferred first appeal, where additional evidence was filed
explaining that the investment in HDFC Mutual Fund was made out of
withdrawal from Indian Overseas Bank (IOB). According to assessee, it had
explained the source of deposit in IOB being the sale of other mutual funds.
CIT(A) erroneously held that assessee could not explain the source of
deposit in IOB as the CIT(A) wanted to explain the source of the source and
accordingly the addition was confirmed. Aggrieved, assessee is before us.
4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to written
submissions. In the written submissions filed before CIT(A) all these facts
were disclosed. However, CIT(A) has not appreciated the same. Ld. Counsel
makes categorical statement as under:
(i) The assessee invested Rs. 2,00,000/- in HDFC Mutual Funds by
way of a cheque issued on Indian Overseas Bank, Jaipur.
(ii) The balance in Indian Overseas Bank Jaipur account comprised of
sale of other mutual funds held by the assessee. These facts can be
proved by the assessee by documentary evidence.
(iii) The statement is correct and if the same is found to be otherwise
the assessing officer while framing the set aside assessment can
take a suitable note of it and can take appropriate action in penalty
proceedings which may arise in case assessee's statement is found
to be incorrect.
(iv) It is pleaded that the matter may be set aside, restored back to the
file of assessing officer where assessee undertakes to produce the
relevant evidence.
5. Ld. DR is heard.
3 ITA 1547 & 1548/Del/2013
2006-07 & 2007-08
6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the entire material
available on record. The assessee emphatically claims that he has not earned
any income which has escaped assessment but the amount has been
reinvested by realization of existing mutual funds. In the interest of
substantial interest, we are inclined to set aside the matter back to the file of
assessing officer to decide the issue afresh, keeping in view the undertaken
given by the assessee's counsel as mentioned above.
6.1. Since we have set aside the quantum to the file of assessing officer,
consequently the corresponding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed at Rs.
48,160/- is also set aside, which may be considered while reframing the
assessment.
7. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in open court on 16-09-2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
( T.S. KAPOOR ) ( R.P. TOLANI )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 16th Sept. 2013.
MP
Copy to :
1. Assessee
2. AO
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
4 ITA 1547 & 1548/Del/2013
2006-07 & 2007-08
|
