B.Jenson Thanaraj, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1232/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 123221714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M KARUNAKARAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Peak credit

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1232/MDS/2014 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI B. JENSON THANARAJ, 30, NEW THANDAVARAYA STREET, WASHERMANPET, CHENNAI - 600 021. PAN : AEPPJ 1931 E V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SH. M. KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. N. MADHAVAN, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 30.04.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.05.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, CHENNA I, DATED 21.01.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. NO.1232/MDS/14 2. SHRI M. KARUNAKARAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) TO THE EX TENT OF ` 20,27,531/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN M/S JENSON E NTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT A DEPOSIT OF ` 32,39,731/- WAS MADE ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE HELD IN AXIS BANK. ACCORDING TO THE LD. C OUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T HIS SAVINGS FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS AND GIFT RECEIVED FROM HIS MO THER AND FATHER-IN- LAW ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS WERE DEPOSITED ON VARIOUS DATES IN AXIS BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE AM OUNT DEPOSITED IN AXIS BANK WAS WITHDRAWN AT TUTICORIN. THE AMOUN T WITHDRAWN WAS ALSO RE-DEPOSITED AT TUTICORIN AND AGAIN WITHDR AWN AT CHENNAI. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE VERY S AME AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN AND USED FOR DEPOSIT ON VARIOUS DATES. H OWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF ` 32,39,731/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE , THE CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO TAKE PEAK CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 20,27,531/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, 3 I.T.A. NO.1232/MDS/14 THE MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK WAS USED FOR RE-D EPOSIT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIR ECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE PEAK CREDIT AS UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI N. MADHAVAN, THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS IN M/S JENSON ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED WHICH HAS ITS HEAD OFFICE AT CHENNAI AND WORK PLACE AT TUTICORIN. ONE SHRI E SAKKI MUTHU AND SHRI CHERMAKANI ARE THE EMPLOYEES OF M/S JENSON ENT ERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE ISSUED CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF THESE EMPLOYEES, THE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN BY THEM FROM THE BANK. THERE WAS NO BUSINESS DEALING BETWEEN THE AS SESSEE AND THE SAID EMPLOYEES. SINCE THESE EMPLOYEES WERE WOR KING WITH THE CONCERN IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE DIRECT ORS, THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN BY THE EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE TREATE D AS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM ONE PLACE WAS DEPOSITED IN AN OTHER PLACE, IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE. TH E AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN IN CHENNAI AND IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW IT COU LD BE DEPOSITED IN TUTICORIN. SIMILARLY, THE AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE WITHDRAWN AT TUTICORIN WAS DEPOSITED IN CHENNAI WITHOUT ANY MATE RIAL EVIDENCE. INSPITE OF THAT, THE CIT(APPEALS) CAME TO A CONCLUS ION THAT THE 4 I.T.A. NO.1232/MDS/14 AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT T HROUGH EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY WAS AVAILABLE AS SOURCE FO R SUBSEQUENT DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT( APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE ONLY PEAK CREDIT. TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDL Y, THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN M/S JENSON ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIM ITED. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING A SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK AT CHENNAI. THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED A SUM OF ` 32,39,731/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE ISSUED CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF ONE SHRI ESAKKI MUTHU AND SHRI CHERMAKANI , BOTH ARE EMPLOYEES OF M/S JENSON ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED . THE REASON FOR ISSUING CHEQUES WAS NOT KNOWN. THE FACT REMAIN S THAT MONIES FROM THE ASSESSEES S.B. ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK WER E WITHDRAWN BY THESE TWO EMPLOYEES ON THE BASIS OF THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE WAS WITHDRAW ING MONEY FROM CHENNAI AND RE-DEPOSITING AT TUTICORIN. WHEN THE ASSESSEE COULD WITHDRAW AT TUTICORIN ITSELF FROM THE VERY SA ME S.B. ACCOUNT, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHY THIS AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM CHE NNAI AND TAKEN TO TUTICORIN FOR RE-DEPOSIT. SIMILARLY, THE MONEY FROM THE VERY 5 I.T.A. NO.1232/MDS/14 SAME S.B. ACCOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM TUTICORIN AND WAS USED TO DEPOSIT IN CHENNAI. THOUGH THIS KIND OF STATEMENT IS UNBELIEVABLE, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE MONEY WITHDRAWN WOU LD BE AVAILABLE FOR SUBSEQUENT DEPOSIT, THEREFORE, DIRECT ED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE ONLY PEAK CREDIT. THEREFORE, THE A SSESSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE ON THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE CI T(APPEALS) TO TAKE PEAK CREDIT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCO RDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15 TH MAY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 15 TH MAY, 2015. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-II, CHENNAI 4. 1 92 /CIT-II, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.