SMT M MEENA, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5 (3), CHENNAI

ITA 1515/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0159 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BHARATH
• Assessee Lawyers: M KARUNAKARAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , ! BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / I.T.A. NO.1515/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT.MEENA, 164,G.A.ROAD, CHENNAI-600 021. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-5(3) CHENNAI-600 034 PAN: AAKPM6581C ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. M.KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR.S.BHARATH, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.03.2019 / O R D E R PER S.JAYARAMAN, AM: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO. 260/ CIT(A)-5/2016-17 DATED 05.03.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13 IN THE CASE OF SMT.MEENA, THE ASSESSEE, THE AO FOU ND THAT 82,24,000/- CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BA NK ACCOUNT. WHEN HE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURC ES FOR THESE CASH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT RS.16,93,000/ - CASH DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANK ON D IFFERENT DATES AND 3,31,000/- CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF THE PAST SAV INGS AND ACCRUALS 2 ITA NO.1515/CHNY/2018 AND 62,00,000/- CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THE AO EXAMINED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND FOUN D THAT WITHDRAWALS MADE BETWEEN THE PERIOD FROM 3.6.2011 A ND 16.2.2012 WERE IN THE NAMES OF H.BANU AND T.RAMAKRISHNAN. SIN CE THESE WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE BY OTHERS AND DURING THE SA ME PERIOD WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ADEQUATE CASH WITH HER , SHE HAS MADE FURTHER EXTRA CASH WITHDRAWALS, THEREFORE, THE AO DID NOT A CCEPT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION. ON THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF PAST SAVI NGS AND ACCRUALS OF 3,31,000/-, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES EX PLANATION FOR WANT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE AO HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS AT 20,24,000/- AND ADDED IT AS AN UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT U/S.68. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OBSERVING, INTER AL IA, AS UNDER:- 6.4 IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT FUR THER CLAIMED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF 3,31,000/- WAS MADE OUT OF THE APPELLATS OWN SAVINGS AND CURRENT INCOME AND DRAWINGS FROM THE BU SINESS. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE AR STATED THAT CONS IDERING THE INCOME EARNED AND STATUS OF THE APPELLANT, THE AMOUNT CLAI MED AS AVAILABLE OUT OF PAST ACCRUALS WAS QUITE REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED BUT DI D NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM ALSO. 6.5 THUS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE FILED A PET ITION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, SEEKI NG ADMISSION OF 3 ITA NO.1515/CHNY/2018 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHEREIN A COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FR OM SHRI T. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.SINKARAVEL AND MR.J.M.MANOHARLAL JAIN, S/O.LATE MOHANLAL JAIN WAS FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED T O ADMIT THESE DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. PER CONTRA, THE L D.DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 6.4 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), W HICH IS EXTRACTED AS ABOVE, AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A REPLY BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THAT SHE CANNOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE AND STATED THAT APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED BASED ON WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THERE AFTER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THE APPEAL, SUPRA. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RAISE A PLEA FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U NDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ) RULES, ON THIS ISS UE. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT BUT FOR THE AFFIDAVITS, THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL FOR TAKING PRIMA-FACIE STAND FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE AND HENCE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD.DR. THEREFORE, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS DISMISSED . 5. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT CASH DEPOSITS OF 16,93,000/- WAS MADE OUT OF EARLIER WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM THE BANK AND TH OSE WITHDRAWALS 4 ITA NO.1515/CHNY/2018 WERE MADE BY ASSESSEES OWN EMPLOYEES. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE IGNORED AS NOT DONE BY ASSESSEE HERSELF. HE ALSO SU BMITTED THAT THE TIME GAP BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSITS ARE QU ITE NORMAL AND THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS REA SONABLE. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF 62,00,000/- CASH DEPOSITS ARE FROM THE CURRENT INCOME AND ON EXAMINATION , THE AO HAS ACCEPTED IT . WHEN HE ASKED FOR SOURCES OF DEPOSIT MADE AT 16,93,000/-, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCES NOR COULD FURNISH ANY EVIDEN CE AND HENCE, THE AO ADDED THE SUM AS AN UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE L D.CIT (A) PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DECLINED, THE RELEVANT PORTION IS EXTRACTED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , SUPRA, . THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE T HE LD.DR PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY T HE LD.CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND MERITS I N THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.DR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER EXPLAI NED THE SOURCES NOR FURNISHED SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE, THE I MPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS U PHELD. THEREFORE, THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE FAIL. 5 ITA NO.1515/CHNY/2018 8. WITH REGARD TO ISSUE OF ADDITION AT 3,31,000/- OUT OF THE PAST SAVINGS ETC, THE LD.AR WANTED TO WITHDRAW THE GROUN D AND ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ENDORSEMENT TO THAT EFFECT ON RECORD. THE L D.DR HAS NO OBJECTION FOR THE SAME. THUS, THE SAID GROUND IS AL SO DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH MARCH, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (. ) ( N.R.S.GANESAN) (S.JAYARAMAN) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) /CHENNAI, /DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2019 SOMU #$% &% /COPY TO: APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. ( () /CIT(A) 4. ( /CIT 5. % ##- /DR 6. 0 /GF