R.Sugumar, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 1055/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6280 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 133A; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CH ENNAI . , . !' !' !' !' , # # # # $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1055/MDS/2013 # ' %' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 SHRI R. SUGUMAR, PARTNER, SREE SATHYA PLYWOODS, NO. 80B, OPP. SREE COMPLEX, MADURAI ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPALLI - 8 [PAN: ALTPS6350D] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. ( &' &' &' &' /APPELLANT ) ( ()&' ()&' ()&' ()&' / RESPONDENT ) &' * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ()&' * + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT * , / DATE OF HEARING : 01.05.2014 -% * , /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.06.2014 . . . . / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRA PALLI, DATED 07.01.2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN GAGED IN PLYWOOD BUSINESS. A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 26.08.2009 AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1055 1055 1055 1055/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 2 ONE OF THE PARTNERS IN M/S. SHREE SATHYA PLYWOODS, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CONDUCTED ON 26.08.2009 IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHREE SATHYA PLYWOODS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, SEVERAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RELATING TO ITS BUSINESS, LOOSE SHEETS AND JEWELLERY WERE SEIZED FROM HIS RESIDENCE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH 1102.41 GRAMS OF GO LD JEWELLERY WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE ABOVE JEWELLERY CONSIST OF 720 GRAMS BY WAY OF SREEDHAN BY HIS WIFE AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE WHICH IS DULY DECLARED IN THE EARLIER YEAR BALANCE SHEETS AND RECENTLY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE BOUGH T 147.570 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WORTH OF ` .2.26 LAKHS WHICH WAS DEBITED IN THEIR BOTH CURRENT ACCOUNT AND BILLS ALSO PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO CLAIMED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF BIRTHDAY AND EAR BORING CEREMONY, ETC. C HILDREN RECEIVED 50 GRAMS GOLD JEWELLERY AS GIFTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, BY CONSIDERING ASSESSEES PLEA AND OTHER SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS/EVIDE NCES THE JEWELLERY BY WAY OF SREEDHAN, PURCHASE AND GIFT ARE ACCEPTED AND THE BALANCE GOLD JEWELLERY OF 184.84 GRAMS HAS BEEN TAKEN AS UNACCOU NTED JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUE OF ` .2,64,321/- (184.84 GRAMS AT ` .1,430/- PER GRAM) WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1055 1055 1055 1055/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 3 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, SIMPLY MADE ADDITION OF ` .2,64,321/-. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CA SE, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, 1102.41 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS FOUND A T THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A DETAILED EXPL ANATION AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEES WIFE HAS RECEIVED THE GOLD JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AND SUBSEQUENT OTHER EVENTS SUCH AS BIRTHDAY, EAR BORIN G CEREMONY, ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE, HELD THE UNACCOUNTED JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 184.84 G RAMS AND ADDED ` .2,64,321/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE O F THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRME D BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS IN HIGHER SIDE. THEREFORE, IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW REL IEF TO THE EXTENT OF ` .1.00 LAKHS OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE AND THE BALANCE AMOU NT OF ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` .1,64,231/- IS SUSTAINED AND ORDERED ACCORDINGLY, I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1055 1055 1055 1055/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 4 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 20 TH OF JUNE, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 20.06.2014 VM/- . * (#,/0 10%, /COPY TO: 1. &' / APPELLANT, 2. ()&' / RESPONDENT, 3. 2 ( ) /CIT(A), 4. 2 /CIT, 5. 03! (#,# /DR & 6. !4' 5 /GF.