Gatraj, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1378/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8534 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' # . $ , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICI AL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1378/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) MR.GATRAJ, 24, OLD NO.97, NAKODA BUILDING, NARAYANA MUDALI STREET, CHENNAI-600 079. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-4(4), CHENNAI-6. PAN: AALPG6608D ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. G.BASKAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 11 TH JULY, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 5, CHENNAI DATED 22.02.2016 IN ITA NO.76/CIT(A)-5/2 013-14 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 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 CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 4,90,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 2 ITA NO.1378/MDS/2016 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDIN G FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 24.08.2010 ADMITTING INCOME OF ` 5,56,365/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS TO EXAMINE THE TAX ABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME AS APPEARING IN FORM 26AS NOT INCLU DED IN THE TOTAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16.09.2011. DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AS PER FORM 26AS, AN AMOUNT OF ` 35,05,833/- WAS CREDITED TO ASSESSEES ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF LOTTERY WINNINGS AND FINANCIAL OPERATION S. ON FURTHER SCRUTINY OF THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT MAI NTAINED WITH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, SOWCARPET BRANCH, CHENNA I, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 4,90,000/-. WHEN QUERIED, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER PROPER EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE 3 ITA NO.1378/MDS/2016 ADDITION OF ` 4,90,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 4. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT SOURCE F OR THE DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND EVEN FOR THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED TOTAL INC OME OF 5,56,365/- AND PAID TAX ACCORDINGLY. IT WAS THEREFO RE PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR RS.4,90,000/- MAY BE DELETED. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCOME BEYOND RS.5.00 LAK HS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MO NEY LENDING HE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH SOURCE FOR DEPOSIT OF 4 ITA NO.1378/MDS/2016 RS.4,90,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT WARRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS.4,90,000/- BEING HIS DEPOSITS MADE IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 9 TH SEPTEMBER , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ' # . $ ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF