RAMASUBBU RENGARAJ, CHENNAI V. ITO SALARY WARD 1 (3) TAMBARAM, CHENNAI

ITA 1533/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4061 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ ITA NO.1533/CHNY/2018 # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI RAMASUBBU RENGARAJ, FLAT NO.32, 3 RD FLOOR, SRIRAM NAGAR, THALAMBUR ROAD, NAVALUR, CHENNAI - 600 130. PAN : AACPR 2423 F V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD 1(3), TAMBARAM, CHENNAI. ('(/ APPELLANT) ()*'(/ RESPONDENT) '( + , / APPELLANT BY : NONE )*'( + , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT - $ + ./ / DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2018 01% + ./ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.10.2018 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -10, CHENN AI, DATED 27.03.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF 8 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2 I.T.A. NO.1533/CHNY/18 3. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE POSTAL ACKNOW LEDGEMENT AS PROOF FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. INSPI TE OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE, NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE A PPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. THEREFORE, I HEARD THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 4. SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF M/S W IPRO TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN INDIAN BANK, SHOLIN GANALLUR BRANCH, TO THE EXTENT OF 20,25,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE BANK ACCOUNT STANDS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SMT. RENUGA DEVI. INITIALLY, ACCORDIN G TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE MONEY WAS GIVEN TO HI M BY HIS FRIENDS, NAMELY, SHRI KANAGARAJ OF TRICHY AND MS. V AISHNAVI OF AMBATTUR. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CONFIR MATION LETTERS FROM SHRI KANAGARAJ AND MS. VAISHNAVI, THERE WAS NO REFERENCE IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS ABOUT THE PAN NUMBER AND S OURCE OF THEIR INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CONFIRMATIO N LETTERS DO NOT CONTAIN EVEN THE BANK DETAILS OF THE SO-CALLED CRED ITORS. 3 I.T.A. NO.1533/CHNY/18 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE MONEY WITHDRAWN BY HIM OVER A PERIOD OF TI ME FROM HIS ICICI BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN IN DIAN BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE A LSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF HIS WIFE WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF CONF LICTING STATEMENTS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL TO SUPPORT THE SOURCE FOR MAKING DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 5. I HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE TO THE EXTENT OF 20,25,000/-. THE ACCOUNT ADMITTEDLY STANDS JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SMT. RENUGA DEVI. INI TIALLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM SHRI KANAGARAJ AND MS. VAISHNAVI WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. S UBSEQUENTLY, HE CLAIMED THAT THE MONEY WITHDRAWN OVER A PERIOD O F TIME FROM ICICI BANK WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND AT ONE POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME OF HIS WIFE 4 I.T.A. NO.1533/CHNY/18 WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THER E WAS CONFLICTING STATEMENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF M/S WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES L TD. IN VIEW OF CONFLICTING STATEMENTS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASCERTAIN THE SOURCE O F INCOME WHICH WAS ACTUALLY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE PA N NUMBERS OF SHRI KANAGARAJ AND MS. VAISHNAVI WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS W ITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF INCOME EITHER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S OR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION OF 8 LAKHS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5 I.T.A. NO.1533/CHNY/18 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24 TH OCTOBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3! /DATED, THE 24 TH OCTOBER, 2018 KRI. + ).45 65%. /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 2. )*'( /RESPONDENT 3. - 7. () /CIT(A)-10, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-7,CHENNAI 5. 5$8 ). /DR 6. 9# : /GF.