Dr.A.Ramesh, Coimbatore V. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1292/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 129221714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN JCITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: T RAGHUNATHANC A
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHE NNAI . , . , ! ' BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1292 & 1293/MDS./2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 & 2011-12) DR.A.RAMESH , C-20,SIRUVAN NAGAR, KOVAIPUDUR POST, COIMBATORE 641 012. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV, COIMBATORE. PAN AETPR 7526 P ( #$ / APPELLANT ) ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.T.RAGHUNATHAN,C.A / RESPONDENT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN,JCIT,D.R !' # / DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2015 $% !'# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.12.2015 ' / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, DR. A.RAMESH AGGRIEVED BY THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-I8, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.452/CIT(A)4/14 -15, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND IN ITA NO.450/CIT(A)-18 /14-53 BOTH ITA NOS. 1292,1293/MDS/15 2 ORDERS DATED 25.02.2015, PASSED UNDER SECTION 153 A R.W.S 143(3) & 250 OF THE ACT . SINCE THE ISSUES IN BOTH THESE APP EALS ARE ARISING OUT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES ON 02.07.2010, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISPOS ED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS WITH SE QUENCE OF EVENTS IN BOTH THE APPEALS, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF TH E ISSUE IS THAT:- FOR A.Y 2008-09 A) THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER O F THE A.O WHO HAD REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GIFT OF ` .2 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW AND THEREFORE THE SAME WAS A DDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/ S 69 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY AT KOVALPUDUR. FOR A.Y 2011-12 B) THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF ` 7,16,651/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S .69 OF THE ACT BEING 425.060 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH ITA NOS. 1292,1293/MDS/15 3 AND BY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AFFORESTATED JEWELLERY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEES MOTHER/MOTHER-I N-LAW. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WORKING AS PROFESSOR IN SRI KRISHNA COL LEGE OF TECHNOLOGY RUN BY THE VLB GROUP. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE VLB GROUP AND RESIDENTIAL PREM ISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 02/07/2010. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2011-12 WERE MADE UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 22.03.2013. A.Y 2008-09 4.1 GROUND NO.1: ADDITION OF ` 2 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S.69 OF THE ACT. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ON 02.07.2010, THE ASSESSE E HAD GIVEN A SWORN STATEMENT STATING THAT HE HAD RECEIVED GIFT O F ` 10 LAKHS FROM HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW BY WAY OF CASH. SUBSEQUENTLY AFTE R THE LAPSE OF 12 MONTHS, HE AGAIN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAD RECEIVED ` 12 LAKHS GIFT FROM HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW AND NOT ` 10 LAKHS ITA NOS. 1292,1293/MDS/15 4 AS STATED EARLIER, WHICH WAS THE SOURCE FOR HIS INV ESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY AT KOVAIPUDUR. THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL ` 2 LAKHS GIFT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HE FELT THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSES SEE WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND THEREFORE, ADDED ` 2 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE AC T. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER BY AGREEING TO HIS VIEW. 4.2 BEFORE US LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AT STRESS AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT ABLE T O RECOLLECT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE GIFT WHICH R ESULTED IN THE DISCREPANCY. HE THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ADDITIO N OF ` 2 LAKHS MAY BE DELETED. THE LD. D.R ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. 4.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. A.R., ANY INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE SLIGHTLY DISORIENTED WHEN SUCH PROCEEDINGS TAKES ITA NOS. 1292,1293/MDS/15 5 PLACE WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DISTORTION WHILE PRESEN TING FACTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPT ED THE GIFT OF ` 10 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS MOTHER IN L AW. IN SUCH SITUATION WE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY A MERE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL ` 2 LAKHS GIFT FROM THE ASSESSEES MOTHER IN LAW SHOU LD BE DISBELIEVED. EVEN OTHERWISE CONSIDERING THE STATUR E OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF HIS FAMILY, WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE GIFT OF ` 12 LAKHS BY THE MOTHER-IN-LAW TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE GENUINE. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 2 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT. A.Y 2011-12 5.1 GROUND NO.2: ADDITION OF ` 7,16,651/- BEING THE VALUE OF 425.060 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY BELONGING TO ASSESSEES MOTHER/M OTHER-IN-LAW. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, GOLD AN D DIAMOND JEWELLERY WEIGHING 2981.110 GRAMS WERE FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ITA NOS. 1292,1293/MDS/15 6 ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY AS FOLLOWS:- WITH RESPECT TO JEWELLERY IN SL. NO.1, THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BEING THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEES IN-LAWS AT THE TIME OF HIS MAR RIAGE WHICH WAS EVIDENT FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AT THE TIME OF WE DDING. WITH RESPECT TO JEWELLERY IN SL. NO.2 ALSO, THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS AS THE SAME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. WITH RESPECT TO JEWELLERY IN SL. NO.3, THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 274.410 GRAMS WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF PUBERTY FUNCTION OF THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER AND THEREFORE, ADDED ` 4,62,655/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ADOPTING THE VALUE OF JEWELL ERY AT ` 1,686 PER GRAM BEING THE PEAK VALUE FOR 22 CARAT GOLD AS ON T HE DAY OF THE SEARCH. SIMILARLY WITH RESPECT TO JEWELLERY IN SL. NO.4 ALSO, THE LD. SL. NO. SOURCE OF ACQUISITION WEIGHT (GRAMS) 1 JEWELLERY GIVEN BY THE IN-LAWS AT THE TIME OF MAR RIAGE. 1567.900 2 JEWELLERY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE 673.690 3 JEWELLERY RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS FESTIVE OCCASIONS 314.410 4 JEWELLERY BELONGING TO MOTHER AND MOTHER-IN-LAW 4 25.060 TOTAL 2981.06 ITA NOS. 1292,1293/MDS/15 7 ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT 425.060 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE S MOTHER OR MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 7,16,651/- ADOPTING THE SAME VALUE OF GOLD MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE THUS AN AGGREG ATE OF ` 11,79,306 WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE A S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD U/S.69 OF THE ACT. 5.2 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITI ON OF ` 4,62,655/- WITH RESPECT TO JEWELLERY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE S DAUGHTER AT THE TIME OF PUBERTY FUNCTION, HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION OF ` 7,69,651/- BY SIMPLY ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THE STATURE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS REL ATIVES AND THE FAMILY CONDITIONS, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD TH AT JEWELLERY WORTH ` 7,16,651/- WILL BE COMMONLY HELD BY THE LADIES OF T HE FAMILY ACQUIRED OVER THE PERIOD OF YEARS. THEREFORE, WE DISAGREE WI TH THE VIEW OF THE REVENUE THAT SUCH JEWELLERY WOULD HAVE BEEN ACQUIRE D FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 7,16,651/- BEING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD. ITA NOS. 1292,1293/MDS/15 8 6. IN THE RESULT, THE BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 22 ND DECEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) * ) + . ,- ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 22 DECEMBER,2015. K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE