IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA 'B' BENCH, KOLKATA
Coram : Shri Abraham P. George (Accountant Member)
and Shri George Mathan (Judicial Member)
I.T .A. No. : 1400/Kol./ 2011
Assessment year : 2007-2008
Shri Harish Kumar Manikant Goda Vs Income Tax Officer
Appearances by:
Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, for the assessee
Shri P.B. Pramanick, JCIT, Sr. D.R, for the Department
Date of concluding the hearing : February 14, 2014
Date of pronouncing the order : February 19, 2014
ORDER
Per Abraham P. Geroge :
1. In this appeal, assessee assails an addition of Rs.3,62,100/- which was scaled down by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIX, Kolkata to Rs.2,68,150/-.
2. Facts apropos are that assessee is an individual , had filed his return for the impugned assessment year declaring income of Rs.1,69,635/-. It seems that return was originally subject only to a processing under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act. Reason for reopening is not available in the assessment order. During the course of reassessment proceedings, Assessing Officer based on certain documents came to a finding that jewellery worth Rs.5.5 lakhs was handed over by the assessee to the in-laws of his daughter. As per Assessing Officer, said jewellery was not shown in assessee's balance- sheet. No return of wealth was filed by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the maximum gold jewellery that can be possessed by a married man, who has not filed any wealth-tax return, can be only 200 grams. Taking per gram rate of Rs.939.5, Assessing Officer reached a figure of Rs.1,87,900/-, as the maximum value of gold jewellery that can be possessed by the assessee. The difference of Rs.3,62,100/- was added as unaccounted income.
3. In its appeal before ld. CIT(A ppeals), argument of the assessee was that only 400 grams of jewellery was handed over to the in-laws of his daughter at the time of marriage and on various occasions. As per the assessee, such jewellery was purchased over a large number of years out of savings. Assessee further submitted that there were regular withdrawals made by him from his accounts and, therefore, surplus money was available with him for purchasing small quantities of gold ornaments over a long period of time. As per the assessee, the total amount spent by him for the marriage of his daughter was Rs.12.32 lakhs and the jewellery given to the in-laws of his daughter was only 400 grams.
4. Ld. CIT(Appeals) partly accepted the claim of assessee. According to him, withdrawals were made by the assessee over a number of years from his accounts and, therefore, the cl aim that some of jewellery was purchased in the earlier years out of savings, could not be brushed aside.
He was of the opinion that credit to the extent of 300 grams of jewellery coul d be allowed to the assessee. He, therefore, held that at the rate of Rs.939.5 per gram the maximum value of jewellery that could be held by the assessee was only Rs.2,81,850/-. He, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,68,150/-.
5. Now before us, l d. A.R. strongly assailing the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) submitted that 400 grams of jewellery was not a huge holding and not something which was not achievable for a common man.
According to him, reopening of assessment was based on complaint given by the son-in-law of the assessee who was trying for a divorce from assessee's daughter. As per l d. A.R. when withdrawals were found sufficient for more than 400 grams, ld. CIT(A ppeals) erred in coming to a conclusion that assessee could at the best hold onl y 300 grams of jewellery.
6. Per contra, ld. D.R. supported the order of ld. CIT(Appeals).
7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not disputed the claim of assessee that he was having drawings from his accounts in the earlier years. Admittedly assessee was having only 400 grams of jewellery, which was given by him to the in-laws of his daughter at the time of marriage.
Assessee who was regularl y filing return of income claimed that he had acquired such jewellery over a number of years. Since he was having a daughter to marry off, this is not an unbelievable version. Endeavour of every Indian is to accumulate some jewellery which can be used at the time of marriage of his/her daughter. At the best, assessee can only be considered as a doting father. It is not required for an assessee to file personal balance-sheet along with the return of income. Hence, the question of jewellery not appearing in the balance-sheet, in our opinion, is irrelevant. The reopening, as well as assessment, in our opinion, was an aftermath of family disputes between the daughter of the assesese and her husband. This is not a case where undisclosed income or unaccounted income could have been assessed. The addition made is deleted in full.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th day of February, 2014.
'Top 10 Indian Cyber Crimes' while filing online Income Tax Returns | |
By : Ferry Dhiman on 03 February 2014   Print this | |
  YES people now a days are net savvy , though unknowingly they may be trapped under Information Technology Act ,2000 . Following are the top ten 'Cyber Crimes' while filing Indian Income Tax return Online:- 1. Sending request to password change of any other person without authority: If on the web portal of Indian Income Tax Department request is found to be sent by any person without any consent from the assessee or authority to do so is not obtained U/s 4B of Information Technology Act 2000 .The assessee can file complaint under section 72 IT act 2000 against such person. 2. Quoting false address or email for creating PAN ID in online data on behalf of assessee: In general an assessee can make his own online ID quoting PAN , but various business concerns /companies or non computer user's hand over this work to accountants. Any entry with regard to address or email is filled wrong or with the intent to keep the assessee henpecked at later stage is a cyber crime u/s 65 read with 71 of IT Act 2000. 3. Registering PAN on income tax portal without the PAN holder's consent-: It is again an offence under section 65 of IT Act 2000. So after investigation U/s 78 of IT Act 2000 punishment may be given to the defaulter.Similarly if any professional / accountant found that he has access to all pan data of its company employees or clients and/or he voluntary register PAN ie without consent , while the PAN holders wanted to file manual returns , that kind of act is a crime of putting personal information on Internet server without consent . Though Chartered accountants / tax lawyers are exempt provided they obtain POA / consent to engage such professionals u/s 4B of IT Act 2000 as exceptions . 4. Hacking password with false digital signatures: It is an offence U/S 66 of IT Act 2000 , however the income tax portal has stopped to entertain password change request by those with new emails ie other than those who created the profile . Mostly Chartered accountants / tax lawyers & accountants now keep the passwords of assessees. The only way to change password is to obtain digital signatures. But few agencies issue digital signs in hurry in this competition world. However in Private limited / limited companies case or where the digital signs are mandatory one can not attach false digital sign.CA's & other professionals are advised to obtain prior permission /POA from all Asseessees for record to avoid any dispute in future. 5. Not disclosing the password created for the Assessee -: It is right of the assessee to know the profile password & username ( PAN generally)from the person who created it with own password to facilitate him for online Income tax return filing. If the creator of password & he has no written permission from assessee & refuses to give the password , a complaint may be made for which the offender u/s 43 read with 44 of IT Act 2000 may be imposed a penalty. 6. Claiming false Income tax refund: Income tax refunds can not be claimed by making false entries in Online ITR in TDS column, so always analyse your 26 AS and try to update data from employer / contractor . Claiming refund without any relevance is punishable under Income Tax , as well as under information technology act read section 65 of IT Act 2000. 7. Quoting bogus online bank Challan entry in self assessment paid tax column: Sometime in hurry ,just to complete the income tax return online or due to misplace of Challan entry details assessee files return giving hypthtical Challan no/bank name . For which demand is raised by Income Tax Department . The department may Investigate & can file complaint u/s 65 of IT ACT 2000 along with Income Tax Act provisitions. 8. No TDS deposit but deduction from taxpayer with fake online entries: This kind of offence is played mostly by employers /contractors ie in transport or big overseas companies . They deduct the amount and thereafter issue the details /via accounts but later in 26 As online the person from whom the TDS charged found there is no such entry . The employer can pretend a clerical mistake but the deductee can file case under Information Technology Act 2000 U/S 65. 9. Filing Income tax return claiming false deductions for tax saving: This is with context to Section 80C , HRA & other deductions normally an Individual assessee claim in online filing of return . The HRA deduction has now secured with a lie check for, the department is now demanding all details of the Renter(owner) of the house , his PAN etc is mandatory to be given in online return , however in deductions of insurance other documents are still not demanded . If such act of assessee is found guilty and deliberate proceedings may be initiated against him/them. 10. Bogus online complaints against an assessee for personal grudges : The Income Tax Department has its complaint / whistleblowers wing ,where the personal details are said to be kept secret of a complainent regarding illegal earnings /incomes. But though people file false complaints out of some personal grudges . If such complaint is traced via Google search from an identifiable email ,the person after investigation person can be trailed u/s 67 Information technology Act 2000. Note – The above Cyber crime related information is for general knowledge only and may not be perfect ,however for details expert guidance is suggested to all readers/CA/Tax Lawyers for more clarity Writer: Ferry Dhiman Chief Counsel FDC, India Contact for more details info@lawferry.com |
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment