C.I.T, Jalpaiguri, W B v. Manju Devi Berlia
[Citation -2015-LL-0402-12]

Citation 2015-LL-0402-12
Appellant Name C.I.T, Jalpaiguri, W B
Respondent Name Manju Devi Berlia
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 02/04/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Bot Summary: IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Hon ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta And The Hon ble Justice Arindam Sinha April 2, 2015 ITA 62 of 2000 C.I.T, Jalpaiguri, W B Vs. Smt. Manju Devi Berlia Mr. S.N. Dutta, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate with Mr. Biswajit Mal, Advocate for the respondent The Court :- A rule was issued on the basis of following questions :- a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ITAT E Bench was justified in law in ignoring the disclosure of Rs. 5 lakhs made by the 2 assessee s husband during the statements u/s. 132(4) of the I.T.Act, which was not retracted either before the ADI or A.O. and as such the decision of the Tribunal is perverse. B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs made by the A.O. Confirmed by CIT(A) on the basis of disclosure of the assessee s husband The assessee/respondent has come up pursuant to the rule issued by this Court. It appears that the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment has set aside the addition of Rs. 5 lakh including the penalty imposed on the ground that the alleged disclosure made by the assessee was not backed by any amount either found in her possession or invested any where or shown to have been spent. The learned Tribunal was of the opinion that the disclosure was without any basis and it is on this view of the matter the order passed by the CIT was set aside. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate has not disputed before us the factual position indicated above. He reiterated that the steps were taken solely on the basis of the disclosure made under Section 132(4) In the absence of the money relatable to the disclosure the view taken by the learned Tribunal does not appear 3 to us to be erroneous.


IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) Original Side Present : Hon ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta And Hon ble Justice Arindam Sinha April 2, 2015 ITA 62 of 2000 C.I.T, Jalpaiguri, W B Vs. Smt. Manju Devi Berlia Mr. S.N. Dutta, Advocate for appellant Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate with Mr. Biswajit Mal, Advocate for respondent Court :- rule was issued on basis of following questions :- a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of ITAT E Bench was justified in law in ignoring disclosure of Rs. 5 lakhs made by 2 assessee s husband during statements u/s. 132(4) of I.T.Act, which was not retracted either before ADI or A.O. and as such decision of Tribunal is perverse. b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in law in deleting addition of Rs. 5 lakhs made by A.O. Confirmed by CIT(A) on basis of disclosure of assessee s husband ? assessee/respondent has come up pursuant to rule issued by this Court. It appears that learned Tribunal by impugned judgment has set aside addition of Rs. 5 lakh including penalty imposed on ground that alleged disclosure made by assessee was not backed by any amount either found in her possession or invested any where or shown to have been spent. Therefore, learned Tribunal was of opinion that disclosure was without any basis and it is on this view of matter order passed by CIT (Appeals) was set aside. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate has not disputed before us factual position indicated above. He reiterated that steps were taken solely on basis of disclosure made under Section 132(4) In absence of money relatable to disclosure view taken by learned Tribunal does not appear 3 to us to be erroneous. Moreover admission in law is also required to be true. We answer question in affirmative and in favour of assessee. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. (Girish Chandra Gupta, J.) (Arindam Sinha, J.) ANC. C.I.T, Jalpaiguri, W B v. Manju Devi Berlia
Report Error