Dr. Geetha Mathai, Vellore V. ITO, Vellore

CO 145/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7622 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K MEENAKSHISUNDHARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Keywords: Gift; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 1385/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 AND C.O. NO.145/MDS/2012 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(1), VELLORE. VS. DR. GEETHA MATHAI, FAMILY CARE CENTRE, 13/1, FILTER BED ROAD, VELLORE-632 001. PAN AAGPM0915Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/CROSS- OBJECTOR) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. MEENAKSHISUNDHARA M DATE OF HEARING : 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 O R D E R PER DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE CROSS OBJE CTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA R IS 2008-09. ITA 1385 & CO 145/12 :- 2 -: THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-IX AT CH ENNAI DATED 26.3.2012 AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SEC.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED WITH AN AMOUNT OF ` 50 LAKHS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THIS AMO UNT OF ` 50 LAKHS WAS A GIFT RECEIVED FROM HER MOTHER MRS. LEEL AMANI JOHN. IN SUPPORT OF THE GIFT, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER A COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES MOTHER AND THE RESPECTIVE BUYER OF T HE PROPERTY. AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE PROPERTY AT POES GAR DEN AT CHENNAI BELONGING TO ASSESSEES MOTHER WAS TO BE SO LD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 6 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE S MOTHER RECEIVED ` 2 CRORES AS ADVANCE TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES MOTH ER WITH HSBC BANK, IN WHICH BRANCH THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HA VING A BANK ACCOUNT. OUT OF THAT DEPOSIT OF ` 2 CRORES, THE ASSESSEE S MOTHER MADE A BANK TRANSFER OF ` 50 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT IN THE SAME BRANCH. ITA 1385 & CO 145/12 :- 3 -: 3. BUT THESE DETAILS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE ACTUAL SALE DEED TO CONFIRM THAT THE SALE WAS C OMPLETE AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE AMOUNT OF ` 50 LAKHS AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED THE CASE IN DETAIL AND FO UND THAT THE RECEIPT OF ` 50 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM HER MOTHER AND THE TRANSMISSION OF FUND IS PROVED BY THE BANK ACCO UNT AND THE SOURCE OF THE ASSESSEES MOTHER IS ALSO PROVED AND AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO REASON TO TREAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 50 LAKHS AS THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGL Y, DELETED THE SAID ADDITION OF ` 50 LAKHS. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF TH E DONOR. 5. NOW, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND THEREFORE, THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DE LETING THE ITA 1385 & CO 145/12 :- 4 -: ADDITION OF ` 50 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER SEC.68. 6. WE HEARD SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, THE LEARNED STAN DING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE AND SHRI K. MEENAKSHISUNDHA RAM, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE SALE DEED, FOR WHICH EARLIER AGREEMENT OF SALE WAS EXECUTED, AND HENCE THE SALE WAS MADE COMPLETE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE A COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR THE REASON TH AT THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY HAS NOT CO-OPERATED AND THERE WAS GREA T DELAY IN OBTAINING THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED. EVEN THOUGH T HE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED IT AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL, WE ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD FOR THE MAIN REASON T HAT THE FACTUM OF SALE HAS BEEN ABUNDANTLY ESTABLISHED BY THE FACT S ALREADY SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S. IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER HAD SOLD THE HOUSE PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF ` 6 CRORES AND HER MOTHER HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCES IN HER HAND TO MAKE A GIFT OF ` 50 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ITA 1385 & CO 145/12 :- 5 -: ASSESSEES MOTHER HAD NO SOURCE TO MAKE SUCH A GIFT IS UNFOUNDED. IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT ALL THE TRANSACT IONS WERE THROUGH BANK CHANNEL. THE TRANSMISSION OF ` 50 LAKH WAS MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES MOTHER TO THE ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED IN THE SAME BANK, BY WAY OF BA NK TRANSFER. THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT IS ALSO ESTABLI SHED. IF AT ALL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXAMINE FURTHER, HE SH OULD HAVE CONSIDERED THIS AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE S MOTHER WHO WAS ALSO AN ASSESSEE TO INCOME-TAX. 8. IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEES MOTHER HAD GIVEN THE ASSESSEE A SUM OF ` 50 LAKHS, SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS WERE AVAILABLE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES MOT HER AT HER CREDIT. THEREFORE, ANY DOUBT ON THE AVAILABILITY O F THE SOURCES TO MAKE THE GIFT OF ` 50 LAKHS IS NOTHING BUT RIDICULOUS. EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A SALE DEED, IT WAS PROVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD RECEIVED ` 50 LAKHS FROM HER MOTHER THROUGH SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE WITHOUT ANY MERIT. WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 50 LAKHS. ITA 1385 & CO 145/12 :- 6 -: 9. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMI SSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 20 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (DR.O.K.NAR AYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR