P.V.Ramachandran, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1115/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4831 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MURALI MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: JHARNA B HARILAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 1115/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011 SHRI. P.V.RAMACHANDRAN, FLAT NO.11, D-BLOCK, HALLS TOWERS, 33 HALLS ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 008. [PAN AEPPR 7345E] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD V(1) CHENNAI. ( !' / APPELLANT) ( #$!' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SMT. JHARNA B. HARILAL, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. M. MURALI MOHAN, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 26-04-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-04-2017 % / O R D E R ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED THAT AN ADDIT ION OF A20,00,000/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE AN SALARIED EMPLOYE E HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT YEAR DECLARING ITA NO. 1115/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: AN INCOME OF A9,48,460/-. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WA S HAVING INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF A2 0,00,000/- ON 16.03.2010 IN HIS ACCOUNT IN HDFC BANK, ANNA SALAI BRANCH. SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS WERE SOUGHT. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WA S THAT HIS FATHER WHO HAD AGRICULTURAL LAND AT PALAKKAD, HAD SOLD SUC H LAND AND THE CONSIDERATION WAS DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCO UNT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF THE SALE D EED OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. FURTHER, AS PER ASSESSEE, APART FROM A10,00, 000/- RECEIVED ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY, ASSESSEES FATHER HAD ALSO G IVEN HIM A FURTHER SUM OF A10,00,000/- RECEIVED ON SALE OF STANDING TR EES. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE F OUND THAT SALE OF THE PROPERTY BY ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI. P.R. VENKATACHA LAM WAS EFFECTED ON 08.01.2009, WHEREAS THE DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT WAS ONLY ON 16.03.2010. FURTHER AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TH E FURTHER SUM OF A10,00,000/- CLAIMED AS RECEIPT ON SALE OF STANDING CROPS WAS NOT EVIDENCED OR SUBSTANTIATED. HE REFUSED TO BELIEVE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF A20,00,000/-, CONS IDERING THE DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER WERE SETTLED IN CH ENNAI. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD BY HIS FATHER WAS UNDER ITA NO. 1115/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: LITIGATION FOR NUMBER OF YEARS AND IT WAS ONLY ON 05.02.2008, BASED ON A FAMILY AGREEMENT, ASSESSEES FATHER RECEIVED 2.50 ACRES AS HIS SHARE. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, HIS FATHER SHRI. P.R. VENKIT ACHALAM WAS AILING FROM CANCER AND UNDERGOING TREATMENT IN CHENNAI AND STAYING WITH HIM. ACCORDING TO HIM, SHRI. P.R. VENKITACHALAM HA D UNDERGONE A MAJOR SURGERY IN BILLROTH HOSPITAL ON 24.05.2008. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SUM OF A10,00,000/- RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND BY HIS FATHER, WAS ENTRUSTED TO HIM SINCE HE WAS LOOKING AFTER HIS FATHER AND WAS MEETING HIS COST OF THE TREATMENT. SIMILARLY, AS PER THE ASSESSEE A SUM OF A10,00,000/- RECEIVED ON SALE OF STANDING TREES EFFECTED BEFORE SALE OF THE LAND, WAS ALSO GIVEN TO HIM FOR SAFE CUSTODY. THUS, AS PER ASSESSEE THE SOURCE WAS CLEA RLY PROVED AND ADDITIONS WERE UNJUSTLY MADE. 4. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) D ID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACC ORDING TO HIM, THE TIME GAP BETWEEN SALE OF THE LAND BY ASSESSEES FAT HER AND THE DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT WAS TOO HUGE TO BELIEVE TH E CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE FO R SALE OF STANDING CROPS CLAIMED TO HAVE DONE IN JUNE 2008. ITA NO. 1115/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: 5. NOW BEFORE ME, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMI TTED THAT ASSESSEES FATHER WAS SUFFERING FROM CANCER AND STAYING ALONG WITH ASSESSEE WHILE BEING TREATED AT BILLROTH HOSPITAL. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 8 TH JANUARY, 2009 WHEREAS ASSESSEES FATHER UNDERWENT OPERATION IN BILLROTH HOSPITAL IN MAY, 2008. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNFAIRLY REJECTED. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI. P.R. VENKI TACHALAM HAD SOLD 2.5 ACRES OF LAND AT PALAKAD FOR A SUM OF A10,00,0 00/- ON 8 TH JANUARY, 2009. ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED RECORDS SHOWING THAT A SSESSEES FATHER WAS UNDERGOING TREATMENT FOR CANCER AT BILLROTH HOS PITAL SINCE MAY, 2008. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PRODUCED TREATMENT RECORD S FROM THE BILLROTH HOSPITAL. HENCE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY IS THAT WHEN THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS EFFECTED BY HIS AILING FATHER ON 8 TH JANUARY, 2009 HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE MONEY TO HIS SON WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER HIM. JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A GAP OF 14 MONTHS, I A M OF THE OPINION THAT SOURCE FOR A10,00,000/- BEING THE SALE CONSID ERATION RECEIVED, ITA NO. 1115/MDS/2016 :- 5 -: OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. SO FAR AS THE BAL ANCE SUM OF A10,00,000/- CLAIMED AS RECEIVED ON SALE OF STANDI NG TREES, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES EXCEPT FOR SUBMISSIONS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT SOURCE FOR A10,00,000/- OUT OF A20,00,000/- DE POSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS HDFC ACCOUNT ON 16.03.2010 STANDS E XPLAINED. ADDITION MADE IS REDUCED TO A10,00,000/- OR IN OTHE R WORDS, ADDITION OF A10,00,000/- IS ONLY SUSTAINED AND THE BALANCE A DDITION IS DELETED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AP RIL, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:27TH APRIL, 2017 KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF