DCIT, CHENNAI V. Shri S.Jeyachandran, CHENNAI

ITA 1143/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 114321714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1143(MDS)/2011 & CO NO.110(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(2), CHENNAI. VS. SHRI S.JEYACHANDRAN, 27, RANGANATHAN STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017. PAN AAFPN9178A. (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJ I P JACOB, IRS, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.BASKAR, ADVOCATE. DATE OF HEARING : 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008-09. THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTIO N ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- - - ITA1143 & CO110 OF 2011 2 TAX(APPEALS)-I AT CHENNAI DATED 28-3-2011 AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153, READ WIT H SECTION 153A, READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 18.89 LAKHS TOWARDS EXCESS GOLD/UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, JEWELLERY OF 5344.700 GRAMS W ERE FOUND AND OUT OF THAT JEWELLERY, 3099.400 GRAMS WERE SEIZ ED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILS OF BREAK UP OF THE J EWELLERY FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO SHOW THAT THE JEWELLERY BELONGED TO VARIOUS MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY. BUT THE ASSESSING O FFICER ALLOWED A DEDUCTION OF 3550 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY ALON E, ON THE BASIS OF JEWELLERY PERMISSIBLE AS PER CBDT CIRCULA R. THE VALUE OF THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF GOLD JEWELLERY OF 179 4.700 GRAMS WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 18,89,891/-. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER HELD THAT NO MATERIAL WAS SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH TO SUGGEST THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS PURCHA SED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD COVERED BY THE SEA RCH. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ALSO OBSERVED T HAT THE - - ITA1143 & CO110 OF 2011 3 ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CREDIT TO THE WILL, FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IF CREDIT WAS GIVEN TO THE JEW ELLERY AS PER THE WILL, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY EXCESS GOLD JEW ELLERY, AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. BUT WHEN THE S OURCE OF ACQUISITION OF GOLD BY THE ASSESSEES PARENTS WAS E NQUIRED INTO BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), SATISFA CTORY EXPLANATIONS WERE NOT PROVIDED. IN THOSE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME- TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF ` 9,47,700/-, ATTRIBUTABLE TO 900 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY AND DIRECTED TO DELETE TH E BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 9,47,700/-. 4. IT IS AGAINST THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) THAT THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL AND IT IS AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN C ROSS OBJECTION BEFORE US. 5. WE HEARD SHRI SHAJI P JACOB, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, APPEARING FOR THE REVEN UE AND SHRI G.BASKAR, THE LEARNED COUNSEL, APPEARING FOR T HE ASSESSEE. - - ITA1143 & CO110 OF 2011 4 6. WE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL. THE ASSESSE E HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS AND BREAK UP OF JEWELLERY FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND WAS SUCCESSFUL IN PROVING THAT A MAJOR PORTION OF THE JEWELLERY BELONGED TO DIFFEREN T MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS ) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE EFFECT OF THE WILL, FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION W HILE FINALISING THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION, IF AT ALL NECES SARY. THIS POINT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAM E TIME THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CONVINCING EXPLANATI ON TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCES OF HIS PARENTS TO PROCURE THAT MUCH OF GOLD JEWELLERY COVERED BY THE WILL EXECUTED BY THEM. THIS POINT W AS HELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IN FAVOUR O F THE REVENUE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT A PORTION OF THE ADDITIO N HAS TO BE DELETED AND A PORTION OF THE ADDITION HAS TO BE SUS TAINED. WE FIND THAT IT IS A FINE DECISION. THE DIVIDING RATI O OF THE ADDITION TO - - ITA1143 & CO110 OF 2011 5 BE DELETED AND TO BE SUSTAINED, BEING 50:50, IS ALS O FOUND TO BE REASONABLE. 7. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE F IND THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY, THE 5 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.