Imdad Ahmed Mecca, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1208/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8849 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS S VIDHYA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Salary income; Peak credit; Additional evidence; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C/SMC BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1208/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) MR. MECCA IMDAD AHMED, 6, NAWAB HABIBULLAH AVENUE, 2 ND STREET, ANDERSON ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 006. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-II(1), CHENNAI. PAN: AAAPI4731Q ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MRS. S.VIDHYA, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 16 TH JUNE, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 TH AUGUST, 2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS)- 6, CHENNAI DATED 23.03.2016 IN ITA NO.61/CIT(A) -6/2014- 15 PASSED UNDER SECTION143(3) & 250(6) OF THE AC T. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,33,500/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT S. 2 ITA NO.1208 /MDS/2016 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARY AND HOUSE PR OPERTY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 28.02.2012 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.15,04,235/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED RETURN DATED 25.08.2012 ADMITTING HIS TOTAL INCOME AS RS.28,30,9 38/-. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND T HE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT ON 29.03.2014 WHEREIN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.19,33,500/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH ON VARIOUS DATES IN HIS BANK ACC OUNT. BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS EXPLAIN ED THAT CASH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PARENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHO ARE INCOME TAX ASSESSEES FOR NEARLY THREE DECADES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PROCEEDING TO MAKE ANY FU RTHER ENQUIRY CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION:- 3 ITA NO.1208 /MDS/2016 I) THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY SELF - SERVING WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. II) JUST BECAUSE THE PARENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE INCOME TAX ASSESSEES FOR THE PAST THREE DECADES, IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAD ENOUGH SOURCE FOR EXTENDING SUCH GIFT S FOR THEIR SON. III) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSE E IS NOTHING BUT EXTRACT OF BANK STATEMENTS. IV) THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM HIS PARENTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. BASED ON THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE PEAK CREDIT OF THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AT RS.19,33,500/- AND ADDED TO THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER BY STATING THAT THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEDED AS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELA TING TO 4 ITA NO.1208 /MDS/2016 THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE ME, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SI MPLY REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D MADE ADDITION IN HIS HANDS INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 68 OF THE ACT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF H IS PARENTS AND AS WELL AS HIMSELF. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EXPLAINING THE NATURE OF DEPOSITS AND SO URCE OF DEPOSITS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER WHICH HE HAS SIMPLY OVERLOOKED. THE LEARNED AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BY STATING THAT TH E ASSESSEE ALSO HAS QUITE A SUBSTANTIAL SOURCE OF INC OME AND DRAWINGS TO JUSTIFY HIS STAND. IT WAS THEREFORE PLE ADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE BY INVOKING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 68 MAY BE DELETED. 5 ITA NO.1208 /MDS/2016 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND, VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND PLEADED THAT THEIR ORDERS MAY BE SUSTAI NED. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE VERACITY OF THE EXPLANATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEES PARENTS HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF INCOME TO JUSTIFY THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THEM IN THE ASSESSEES BANK AC COUNT. FURTHER ON VERIFYING THE BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SU BSTANTIAL DRAWINGS OF MORE THAN RS.40.00 LAKHS AND ALSO GROSS TOTAL INCOME OVER RS.78.00 LAKHS. THIS ESTABLISHES THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF INCOME TO ESTABLI SH THE GENUINENESS OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUN T. FURTHER NOTHING IS BROUGHT BEFORE US TO ESTABLISH T HE GENUINENESS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER T HAT THE LEARNED ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE HAD CONCEDED FOR NOT 6 ITA NO.1208 /MDS/2016 PRESSING THIS GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL. CONSIDER ING THESE FACTS, THOUGH I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF INCOME TO ESTABLISH THE GENUIN ENESS OF DEPOSITS MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT BACK THE ENTIRE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF THE AS SESSEE AND ALSO THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF PARENTS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AFRESH. I ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHAL L BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE REVENUE FOR JUSTIFYING HIS CLAIM. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 19 TH AUGUST, 2016 SD/- ( . ) ( A.MOHAN ALA NKAMONY ) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % /CHENNAI, & /DATED 19 TH AUGUST, 2016 SOMU () *) /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. + () /CIT(A) 4. + /CIT 5. ) 0 /DR 6. /GF .