Vee Vijayalakshmi, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1117/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95892 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . ' #$ , % & BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1117/MDS/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. VEE VIJAYALAKSHMI, OLD NO.16, NEW NO.17, 1 ST STREET, BALAJI NAGAR, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014. PAN : AADPV 6576 D V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEDIA CIRCLE II, CHENNAI - 600 034. ()*/ APPELLANT) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT) )* - . / APPELLANT BY : SH. B. RAMAKRISHNAN, CA +,)* - . / RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT ' - / / DATE OF HEARING : 06.08.2015 01 - / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.08.2015 / 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 4, CHENNAI, DATED 31.03.2015 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-10. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIV IDUAL AND A DIRECTOR OF M/S INFORTRONICS PRIVATE LTD. THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED 2 I.T.A. NO.1117/MDS/15 RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION, ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 14,67,355/-. AS PER ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT, THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE DEPOSITED CA SH OF ` 25,35,200/- IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT HELD WITH S TATE BANK OF INDOOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O EXPLAIN THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FIL ED DETAILS ABOUT HER CASH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED TH E CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 25,35,200/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTIO N 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND THE S AME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). BEFORE THE CIT(APP EALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR OF M/S IN FORTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, WHICH WAS IN FINANCIAL CRUNCH AND WAS IN D ESPERATE NEED OF FUNDS. SO, AS A MEASURE OF SAVING THE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE COMPANY. IN ORDER TO GIVE LOAN, THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED MONEY FROM THE BANK AND MADE MONTHLY EMI P AYMENTS FOR THE SAME. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT ALL THE EMI PAYM ENTS WERE MADE AFTER THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED MONEY FROM THE COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT CASH RECEIPTS/DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF ` 25,35,200/- 3 I.T.A. NO.1117/MDS/15 REPRESENTS THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN TO THE DIRECTOR BY THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR TH E CASH DEPOSITS AND CORRESPONDING PAYMENTS BEFORE THE CIT( APPEALS) AND THE SAME WAS MENTIONED IN PAGE 4 OF THE CIT(APPEALS )S ORDER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT AGREED WITH THE EXPLAN ATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T GIVE ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE A.O., AND CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO DETAILS WERE FILED AND BEFORE THE CIT(A PPEALS), SOME DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HE FILED THOSE DETA ILS VIDE PAGES 4 TO 61 IN PAPER-BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT ONE MORE OPP ORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4 I.T.A. NO.1117/MDS/15 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR OF M/S INFORTRONICS PVT. LTD. AND SHE FILE D HER RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING AN INCOME OF ` 14,67,355/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BASED ON THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT, FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH OF ` 25,35,200/- IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT HELD WITH STATE BANK OF INDOOR. WHEN THE A SSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT, SHE FAILED TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE A.O. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), SHE EXPLAINED THAT THE COMPANY IN WHICH SHE WAS A D IRECTOR, WAS IN A FINANCIAL CRUNCH AND SHE HAD BORROWED FUNDS FROM THE BANK AND GIVEN TO THE COMPANY. THEREAFTER, SHE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT FROM THE COMPANY. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 25,35,200/- FOUND BY THE A.O. AS PER ANNUAL INFORM ATION REPORT, IS THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN MADE BY THE COMPANY TO THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). HO WEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT ACCEPT THESE DETAILS ON THE GR OUND THAT NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE A.O. THEREFORE, H E CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 8. NOW BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DE TAILS IN A PAPER-BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 61 AND PRAYED FOR ONE MORE 5 I.T.A. NO.1117/MDS/15 OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM BEFORE THE CI T(APPEALS). WE FIND THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPO RTUNITY IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE A.O. AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO CONSIDER THE DETAILS AND EXPLANATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO , IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH AUGUST, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ' #$ ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (V. DURGA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, > /DATED, THE 19 TH AUGUST, 2015. KRI. ? - +%/@A BA1/ /COPY TO: 1. )* /APPELLANT 2. +,)* /RESPONDENT 3. ' C/ () /CIT(A)-14, CHENAI-34 4. ' C/ /CIT-10, CHENNAI 5. A E# +%/% /DR 6. #F$ G /GF.