Amitav Banerjee, Kolkata vs Assessee

1 M.A. No. 51/Kol/2014 (arising out of ITA No. 363/Kol/2011) Assessment Year : 2005-2006

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA 'C' BENCH, KOLKATA

Before Shri Sham im Ya hya, Accountant Member and Shri Ge orge M atha n, Judicial Me mber

M.A. No. 51/Kol/2014 (arising out of I.T.A. No. 363/Kol/2011) Assess ment year : 2005 -2 00 6

Sri A mita va Ba ne rjee ,.................... ...................................... . Petitioner C/o. V.N. Purohit & Co., Cha rtered A c counta nts, 32B, Ga nesh Cha nd ra A ve nue, 2 n d Floor, Kol ka ta -700 013 [PA N : A HN PB 7336 E]

-Vs.-

Income Ta x Offic er,........ .............................. ........ ................. Re sp ond ent Wa rd -1(1), Durga p ur

Appeara nces by : Sh ri V.N. Purohit, F.C.A., for the P etition er Sh ri Sanjay, ACIT, for th e R espo ndent

Dat e of concluding t he hearin g : Feb ruary 20, 2015 Dat e of pr onouncing th e order : Feb ruary 20, 2015

Per Shri George Mathan, Judicial Member :

This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the as se sse e ag ainst the order o f the T ribunal in ITA No. 363/Kol/2011 dated 26.08. 2014 for the as se ssm ent yea r 20 05-06 .

2. Sh ri V.N. Purohit, F.C.A., repres ent ed on behalf of the assessee and Sh ri Sanjay, ACIT, Sr. D.R., represent ed on behalf of the Rev enue.

2 M.A. No. 51/Kol/2014 (arising out of ITA No. 363/Kol/2011) Assessment Year : 2005-2006

3. At the ti me of hearin g, it was subm itted by the ld . A.R. on behalf of the asse ssee that there was an erro r in the order of th e Tribu nal in para 7 in so far a s it wa s obs erv ed by the Tri bunal that the boo ks of accounts had n ot been p roduced. It was the submis sion th at a peru sal of p age 2 of the asse ss ment ord er clearly sh owed th at the b ooks o f account s had been produced. It was the submi ssion that consequently there was an e rror in the ord er of the T ribunal which required the ord er to be re-called.

4. In reply, ld. Sr. D.R. sub mitted that the issu e which has b een discussed in para 7 of the orde r of the Tribunal is an i ssu e in resp ect of the valuation of immovable prop erty by the Departm ent al Valuation Officer. It was the su bmi ssion th at a perusal of pag e 7 of th e assessmen t order clearly showed that the ass essee had not produ ced the details with the sourc es o f the inve stmen t mad e in the immov able property being the house property and this had led to the re fe ren ce to the Valuatio n Office r. It was the submissio n that the bo oks of acco unts in re spect of the det ails on the so u rce of inv estment in the house p rop erty have not been produced, the findin g o f the Tribunal was co rrect an d th ere was no mis take apparent f ro m the reco rd, whic h calls fo r any rectifi catio n.

5. We have conside red the rival submis sions. A peru sal of the orde r of the T ribunal in p ara 7 cl early sho ws th at th e i ssu e d ecided by the Trib unal was in respect of the valuation of the immovable prop erty rep resentin g the house p roperty. A perusal of th e as ses sment ord er at pag e 7 clea rly shows tha t the details of the invest ment h ad not b een produced in the cou rse of a ss ess ment. Further a p eru sal of the Depart mental Valuation Offi cer's repo rt, which is at pa ges 1 02 to 115 of the pap e r book, at pag e 103 clea rly shows that th e gen e ral in formation, technical d at a, lay out plan , site pl an nor the accounts and bills and vouchers were p roduced. In fact, only thre e vouch ers had been given by the assessee, which were also n ot si gned by the ass es see befo re the 3 M.A. No. 51/Kol/2014 (arising out of ITA No. 363/Kol/2011) Assessment Year : 2005-2006

Depart mental Valuat ion Officer. Thus clearly the books of acco unts in rel ation to the cost of constructio n h aving not been produced befo re the Assessing Of fic er o r befo re th e Dep artment al Valuation Off ice r, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to have a mistak e app arent f rom the reco rd, which calls fo r any rectifi cat ion.

6. In the se circu m stanc es, the Mi scellan eous Applicatio n filed by the as se sse e stand s di smissed.

Order p ro nounced in th e open Court on 20 t h day of F ebruary, 2015.

Sd /- Sd /- Shamim Yahya George Mathan (A cco untant Member) ( Jud icial Me mber) Kolkata, th e 20 t h day of Feb ruary , 2015

Co pies to : (1) Sri A mita va Ba ne rjee , C/o. V.N. Purohit & Co., Cha rtered A c counta nts, 32B, Ga nesh Cha nd ra A ve nue, 2 n d Floor, Kol ka ta -700 013

(2) Income Ta x Office r, Wa rd -1(1), Durga p ur

(3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) The Depar tmental R epr es entative (6) Guard Fil e By order et c

Assistant Registrar Income Tax App ellate Tribunal Kolkata Ben ch es, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.