ITO 17(3)(2), v. HAFIZULLAH ANSARI,

MA 392/MUM/2010 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 39219924 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAAPA8351N
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number MA 392/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant ITO 17(3)(2),
Respondent HAFIZULLAH ANSARI,
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 29-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 29-10-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 17-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. AND SHRI D.K. AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.392/MUM./2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.4770/MUM./2008 ) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200304 ) DATE OF HEARING: 22.10.2010 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(3)(2) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS LALBAUG PAREL MUMBAI 400 012 . APPELLANT V/S MRS. HAFIZULLAH ANSARI C/O CHHAJED & KEDIA ASSOCIATES 208 BLUE MOON CHAMBERS NAGINDAS MASTER ROAD MUMBAI 400 023 AAAPA8351N .... RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRADIP KEDIA O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA A.M. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N FOR RECTIFICATION OF CERTAIN MISTAKES ALLEGEDLY HAVING BEEN CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 4 TH JANUARY 2010. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE MAIN ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS TO PROVE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE FL AT AND THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 154 WAS DENIED. ACCORDINGLY THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNDIS CLOSED SOURCES. IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE A SSESSEES APPEAL TREATING THE CONSIDERATION BEING RECEIVED FROM KNOWN SOURCES I.E. SALE OF FLAT AND MRS. HAFIZULLAH ANSARI MA NO.392/MUM./2010 2 ACCORDINGLY THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS APROPOS THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN INTERALIA FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUS TAINING THE ACTION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLO SED SOURCES ` 21 00 000 BEING SALE CONSIDERATION OF FLAT AT KIDY TOWERS . 2. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE VIDE PARA3 OF ITS ORDER NOTED AS UNDER: 3. THE LD. A.R. FAIRLY STATED THAT THE QUESTION HERE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT IN RESPECT OF ALLOWING DEDUCTIO N U/S 54 BUT IS AGAINST HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION IS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 21 00 000 WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES BUT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF FLAT IN KIDY TOWERS OBSERVING IN PARA4 AS UNDER: 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PURSUING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 21 00 000 IN HIS RETURN. THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN SHOWN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF FLAT AT KIDY TOWER. THEREFORE T HE AMOUNT OF ` 21 00 000 CANNOT BE SAID TO BE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED S OURCES. THE SOURCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT H AS BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN. THEREFORE IT IS UNUNDERSTANDABLE HO W THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. WHET HER DEDUCTION U/S 54 IS ALLOWABLE ON THIS CONSIDERATION OR NOT IS NOT HERE BEFORE US. THEREFORE THIS MATTER CAN BE EXAMINED BY THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE HOLD THAT THE AMO UNT OF ` 21 00 000 IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES BUT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF FLAT IN KIDY TOWER. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS POINT AND S END THE MATTER BACK TO THE A.O. TO EXAMINE THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 54 AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. THUS THE ONLY POINT DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS TH AT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS FROM KNOWN SOURCES AND NOT FROM UNDISCLO SED SOURCES BUT THE ISSUE RELATING TO ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 54 WAS RESTORED BACK MRS. HAFIZULLAH ANSARI MA NO.392/MUM./2010 3 TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE DECIDED AS P ER LAW. CONSEQUENTLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE BEING APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD REQUIRING ANY RECTIFICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.10.2010. SD/- D.K. AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- S.V. MEHROTRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 29 TH OCTOBER 2010. COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) THE CIT(A) MUMBAI CONCERNED (4) THE CIT MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED (5) THE DR A BENCH ITAT MUMBAI TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY MRS. HAFIZULLAH ANSARI MA NO.392/MUM./2010 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 25.10.2010 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 26.10.2010 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 26.10.2010 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 26.10.2010 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 26.10.2010 SR.PS/PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29.10.2010 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 29.10.2010 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER