R.Jothi Naidu, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1134/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57980 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 1134/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI R. JOTHI NAIDU, NO.5, 17 TH STREET, I BLOCK, THIRUVALLUVAR KUDIYIRUPPU, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI-600 040. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(5), CHENNAI. (PAN: AACPJ6230F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 23-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/02/2 012 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 371/10-11 DATED 01-04-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, LEARNED SR. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHAL F OF THE REVENUE. I.T.A. NO.1134/MDS/2011 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THERE ARE TWO ISSUES IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FIRST BEING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITION REPRESE NTING GOLD JEWELLERY BELONGING TO LATE MRS. KUYILAMBAL, THE MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE A SSESSEE WHO HAD EXPIRED ON 06-12-2002 AND THE SECOND BEING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITION REPRESENTING THE SILVER ITEMS . 4. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH CASH, GOLD, DIAMOND ETC.ITEMS HAD BEEN FOUND. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT SUBSTANTIAL PORT ION OF ALL THE ITEMS HAD BEEN EXPLAINED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT OUT OF THE G OLD JEWELLERY IT WAS FOUND THAT 1029 GMS. GOLD JEWELLERY BELONGED TO LATE MRS. KUYI LAMBAL, THE MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAD PASSED AWAY ON 06-12-2002 AND WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT LATE MRS. KUY ILAMBAL WAS STAYING WITH THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE DEATH OF HER SON. IT WAS THE SU BMISSION THAT OUT OF THE 1029 GMS. AS CLAIMED TO BELONG TO LATE MRS KUYILAMBAL I T WAS SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTED THAT 560 GMS HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEES WIFE, 216 GMS. HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEES BROTHER-IN-LAWS WIFE AND APPROXIMAT ELY 256 GMS. HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEES BROTHER-IN-LAWS DAUGHTER. IT WA S THE SUBMISSION THAT ALL THE THREE PERSONS HAD SPECIFICALLY FILED AFFIDAVITS TO THAT EXTENT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE S WIFE, THE ASSESSEES BROTHER- I.T.A. NO.1134/MDS/2011 3 IN-LAWS WIFE AND THE ASSESSEES BROTHER-IN-LAWS D AUGHTER BY ACCEPTING THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THEM. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE PORTION OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH THE GOLD RECEIVED FROM LATE MRS. KUYILAMBAL HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION THAT OUT OF 10 29 GMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE CLAIM TO THE EXT ENT OF 500 GMS. AND THE DISPUTE WAS ONLY IN REGARD TO THE 529 GMS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. IN REGARD TO THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF SILVER ITEMS, NO SERIOUS ARGUMENTS HAD BEEN PLACED. 5. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH T HERE IS A CLAIM OF LATE MRS. KUYILAMBAL OWNED AGRICULTURAL LAND, NO EVIDENC E TO THAT EFFECT HAD BEEN SHOWN. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN FILING HIS INCOME-TAX AND WEALTH-TAX RETURNS AND NOWHERE IN TH E WEALTH-TAX RETURNS THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE FACT THAT 529 GMS OF GOLD JE WELLERY BELONGED TO LATE MRS. KUYILAMBAL AND HAD BEEN RECEIVED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS C LAIM. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION REPRESENTING THE GOLD JEWELLERY IN REGARD TO MRS. J. MYTHILI, MRS. R. VIJAYA AND MS. ANUSHA BECAUSE THEY WERE INDEPENDENT INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DELETION HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE LEARNED C IT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES, COULD NOT BE READ I NTO. I.T.A. NO.1134/MDS/2011 4 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HA VE PERUSED THE FACTS AS PLACED BEFORE US. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED A NY SPECIFIC GRIEVANCE IN REGARD TO THE ADDITION REPRESENTING THE SILVER ITEM S AND AS NO EVIDENCE AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN REGARD TO THE ADDITION REP RESENTING THE SILVER ITEMS IS ON RIGHT A FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERE NCE. 7. IN REGARD TO THE GOLD JEWELLERY OF 529 GMS. CLAI MED TO BELONG TO THE ASSESSEES MOTHER-IN-LAW LATE MRS. KUYILAMBAL, IT I S NOTICED THAT THE SAID GOLD HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE AS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY HER FROM HER MOTHER. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER ALSO SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THAT LATE MRS. KUYIL AMBAL COULD OWN JEWELLERY AND HE HAS GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF 500 GMS. GOLD. THOUG H THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE THAT LATE MRS. KUYILAMBAL OWNED AGRICULTU RAL LAND, NO EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US. IN THE CHART F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE, MRS. J. MYTHILI HAS CLAIM ED 897 GMS. TO BE HER OWN AND 560 GMS. TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM LATE MRS. KUYIL AMBAL. IF THIS IS CONSIDERED, THE TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEES WI FE MRS. J. MYTHILI WOULD BE NEARLY 1450 GRMS. WHICH WOULD BE LIABLE FOR WEALTH- TAX. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE HAS ALSO NOT FILED HER WEALTH-TAX R ETURNS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAI NED THE SOURCE FOR THE GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 529 GMS. TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE FACT OF THE I.T.A. NO.1134/MDS/2011 5 CASE AS ALSO THE STANDARD OF LIVING AND THE POSSIBL E SAVINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AN ADDITIONAL 2 29 GMS. COULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE STANDS MODIFIED AND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THE VALUE OF 300 GMS OF GO LD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24/02/2 012. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE