TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HUF), Smt Birajini Panda, Manoranjan Panda, Chittaranjan Panda & Brajaranjan Panda, all are independent assesses on their own accord having own source of income from house property etc., acquired in the year 1986 and when the income from the same property is offered to tax by all of them since then till today duly accepted by the department and addition of the house property in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration tantamount to double addition. 3. For that, the addition of Rs. 1,88,990/- added towards interest income deserves to be deleted on the ground that, not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case but also, unwarranted as per the statutory provisions as the interest income belongs to Premananda Panda(HUF), Smt Birajini Panda, Manoranjan Panda, Chittaranjan Panda & Brajaranjan Panda, all are independent assesses on their own accord having own source of income and when the income from the interest income is offered to tax by all of them since then till today duly accepted by the department and addition of the interest income in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration tantamount to double addition.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case but also, unwarranted as per the statutory provisions is highly, unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law as the deposits belongs to Premananda Panda(HUF), Smt Birajini Panda, Manoranjan Panda & Brajaranjan Panda, all are independent assesses on their own accord having own source of income and when the income from the deposits is offered to tax by all of them since then till today duly accepted by the department. 9. For that, non acceptance of the so called additional evidence by the CIT(A) that goes to the roots of the matter filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) even after sending the same for remand report is out and out illegal, unjustified & unsustainable being devoid of merit deserves to be accepted and considered in view of natural justice & fair play. 10. For that, the appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend further grounds, if any, at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. The assessee for A.Y.1993-1994 has raised the following grounds:- 1. For that, the order of the forum below is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and erroneous and has been passed on improper application of mind, being devoid of merit as such deserves to be quashed in limin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the so called additional evidence by the CIT(A) that goes to the roots of the matter filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) even after sending the same for remand report is out and out illegal, unjustified & unsustainable being devoid of merit deserves to be accepted and considered in view of natural justice & fair play. 6. For that, the appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend further grounds, if any, at the time of hearing of appeal. 4. The assessee for A.Y.1994-1995 has raised the following grounds:- 1. For that, the order of the forum below is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and erroneous and has been passed on improper application of mind, being devoid of merit as such deserves to be quashed in limine. 2. For that, the addition of Rs. 45,600/- added towards income from house property deserves to be deleted on the ground that, not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case but also, unwarranted as per the statutory provisions as the house property income belongs to Premananda Panda(HUF), Smt Birajini Panda, Manoranjan Panda, Chittaranjan Panda & Brajaranjan Panda, all are independent assesses on their own accord havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... report is out and out illegal, unjustified & unsustainable being devoid of merit deserves to be accepted and considered in view of natural justice & fair play. 7. For that, the appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend further grounds, if any, at the time of hearing of appeal. 5. The assessee for A.Y.1995-1996 has raised the following grounds:- 1. For that, the order of the forum below is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and erroneous and has been passed on improper application of mind, being devoid of merit as such deserves to be quashed in limine. 2. For that, the addition of Rs. 57,600/- added towards income from house property deserves to be deleted on the ground that, not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case but also, unwarranted as per the statutory provisions as the house property income belongs to Premananda Panda(HUF), Smt Birajini Panda, Manoranjan Panda, Chittaranjan Panda & Brajaranjan Panda, all are independent assesses on their own accord having own source of income from house property etc., acquired in the year 1986 and when the income from the same property is offered to tax by all of them since then ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ending the same for remand report is out and out illegal, unjustified & unsustainable being devoid of merit deserves to be accepted and considered in view of natural justice & fair play. 8. For that, the appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend further grounds, if any, at the time of hearing of appeal. 6. From the above grounds of appeal, we observe that there are some common grounds in all the assessment years under consideration, therefore, for the sake of brevity, we are deciding first to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.426/CTK/2000 for the A.Y.1992-1993 and decision of the same will apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals also. 7. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1994-1995, the AO observed that the assessee had made huge investments. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147 of the Act and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. The assessee submitted that the original return filed by him may be treated as return filed in response to notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. Later on other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee was retired Government employee. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... : Rs. 4,84,500/ v) Purchase of Car : Rs. 4,04,856/ vi) Unexplained Bank and Other deposits : Rs. 21,29,557/- 8. Feeling aggrieved from the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Feeling further aggrieved from the CIT(A)'s order, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 10. Ground No.1 & 10 raised by the assessee are general in nature and, therefore, the same do not require any adjudication. 11. With regard to ground No.2, ld. AR submitted that the addition made on account of unexplained investment in gold and silver and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not just and proper. In this regard, ld.AR submitted that the assessee has himself declared in his wealth tax return that he was having possession of 590 gms of gold at the relevant time and the same has been incorporated by the AO in his assessment order at para 5.3 page 3. Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee family consists of his wife, three sons and one daughter and as per the CBDT Instruction No.1916, dated 11.05.1994, gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms. per married lady, 250 gm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....truction No.1916 is dated 11.05.1994. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the case of the assessee the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Criminal Appeal No.479 of 2013 vide judgment dated 21.03.2014 has directed to drop the proceeding initiated vide order dated 21.09.2013, passed by the Authorised Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in Confiscation Case No.4/2009. Further the Hon'ble High Court has observed that if the assessee is acquitted of the offence then the confiscated property is to be returned to him. So the natural corollary to this provision is that if there is no possibility of recording any conviction as in the case of death of the person affected and abatement of the criminal trial against him, a confiscation cannot be made as there is no possibility of the person affected being convicted for the offence under the P.C.Act. Ld. AR before us relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sushila Devi Vs. CIT, (2016) 144 DTR 29 (Delhi), wherein in para 9 the Hon'ble High Court has held as under :- "9. The respondents' rationale or justification is entirely insubstantial. The petitioner says that she was married in mid 1960s and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the authorities below. After considering the aforesaid submissions we are of the view that addition made is totally arbitrary and is not founded on any cogent basis or evidence. We have to keep in mind that the assessee was married for more than 25-30 years. The jewellery in question is not very substantial. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee is correct in her submission that it is a normal custom for woman to receive jewellery in the form of "stree dhan" or on other occasions such as birth of a child etc. Collecting jewellery of 906.900 grams by a woman in a married life of 25-30 years is not abnormal. Furthermore, there was no valid and/or proper yardstick adopted by the Assessing Officer to treat only 400 grams as "reasonable allowance" and treat the other as "unexplained". Matter would have been different if the quantum and value of the jewellery found was substantial. Respectfully following the above observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above cases, we are of the opinion that the addition made on account of possession of gold of 590 gms. worth of Rs. 2,17,350/- is not sustainable. 15. Further, with regard to addition on account of possession ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be deleted. Ground No.6 is allowed. 19. With regard to grounds Nos.2,3,5,7,8 & 9, ld. AR during the course of hearing has filed an application under rule 29 of ITAT Rules, for acceptance & admission of additional evidences for just and proper adjudication of the matter, wherein the contents of the same are as under :- 1. That all the additions made in the assessment order by the Ld. A.O. is based upon the returns filed by the family members of the assessee Late Premananda Panda i.e., Smt Birajini Panda(Wife), Manoranjan Panda(Son), Chitaranjan Panda(Son) & Brajaranjan Panda as well as return filed for the Partnership firm M/s Jagmohan Industries towards ton the ground that all the returns were filed after the Vigilance raid conducted in the office & residential premises of the Deceased assessee on dated 22nd April, 1995 on the ground that, the assessee filed Income Tax returns in the name of his HUF, wife and sons before the ITO, Srikakulam(A.P.) in the month of march,97 showing various sources of income trying to explain away different investments. However, such returns were filed for the first time, much after the search by the Vigilance Department was conducted an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Justice not the Mistress of Justice", "When substantial Justice and Technicalities are Pitched against each other substantial Justice has to been given preference" & finally -Judiciary is not respected for legalising injustice on technical grounds but for being capable of removing injustice......[ COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION vs. MST. KATIJI & ORS (SC) 167 ITR 471]. 5. That in view of the above narrated facts under the circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT being the last fact finding authority is hereunder Prayed & Requested to kindly accept the fresh or additional evidences and adjudicate the appeals on merit as the Factual Matrix deserves to be evaluated & analysed to arrive at Just & proper Justice to the appellant and prevent any Miscarriage of Justice as Article 265 of the Constitution of India postulates that no tax shall be levied upon the citizens except by the authority of the law, And further be pleased to pass any such order/direction/rule as would be fit and proper in the eye of law. And for this act of your kindness, the appellant as in duty bound shall ever pray. In addition to this, ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has filed evide....