ITO, Pondicherry V. Latha Rajee Mathew, Pondicherry

ITA 1540/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7766 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJASEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Keywords: Gift; Additional evidence

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 ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1540/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 PUDUCHERRY VS. SMT. LATHA RAJEE MATHEW NO.2, 1 ST CROSS THIRU VI KA, MUDALIARPET PONDICHERRY 605 004 [PAN BGJPM 3083 K ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJASEKARAN, CA /RESPONDENT BY : DR. B NISCHAL, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 02 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 03 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), PUDUCHER RY, DATED 30.3.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDITION OF ` 93,11,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ITA NO.1540/15 :- 2 -: 3. DR.B. NISCHAL, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS CAS H A DEPOSIT OF ` 30,61,000/- IN THE PONDICHERRY STATE CO-OPERATIVE B ANK LTD. AND ANOTHER CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 62,50,000/- IN INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAI NED THAT SHE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 60 LAKHS FROM HER MOTHER AS GIFT. THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MEANT FOR GETTING A M EDICAL SEAT ADMISSION FOR HER SON SHRI RUFUS MATHEW RAJEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT SHE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 31,61,000/- FROM HER HUSBAND, SHRI KHALUR RAJEEV. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF HE R HUSBAND AND HER MOTHER FOR GIVING THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THE FORM O F SUPPORTING MATERIAL. THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND REPORT, THE CI T(A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND HER MOT HER HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCES FOR GIVING MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. REFERRI NG TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, T HE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD A PROPERTY THROUGH A POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT PRODUCE ITA NO.1540/15 :- 3 -: HER MOTHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINA TION. INSPITE OF THAT THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI RAJASEKARAN, LD. REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A BANK DEPOSIT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 93,11,000/-. THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE IN PONDICHE RRY STATE CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. TO THE EXTENT OF ` 30,61,000/- AND ANOTHER SUM OF ` 62,50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HER MOTHE R, SMT. OMANA NAIR GIFTED A SUM OF ` 60,00,000/- FOR GETTING A MEDICAL SEAT ADMISSION AT PONDICHERRY FOR HER SON SHRI RUFUS MATHEW RAJEE. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT. OMANA NAIR SOLD A LANDED PRO PERTY MEASURING 83,615 SQ FT THROUGH A POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT AND THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. THIS MONEY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT, CO PIES OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED ETC. BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE C IT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSES SING OFFICER, AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE R EGISTERED SALE DEED, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER, SMT. OMANA NAIR HAS SOLD HER LAND AND SHE HAD ENOUGH FUND FLOW FOR MAKING DE POSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO.1540/15 :- 4 -: 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF BANK STATEME NT OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND WHO IS HAVING NRE ACCOUNT IN CAN ARA BANK. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE S HUSBAND, SHRI KHALUR RAJEEV IS WORKING IN DUBAI. THE BANK STATEM ENT OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND WAS PRODUCED WHICH DISCLOSES SUF FICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THIS WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE FOR MAKING DEPOSI T OF ` 93,11,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE S MOTHER COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE OF HER OLD AGE. HOWEVER, THE MATERIAL DOCUMENTS WERE FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE AVAILABILITY OF CASH BALANCE AND THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS. THE CIT(A) , AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE REMA ND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE REC EIVED GIFT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 60 LAKHS FROM HER MOTHER AND ALSO ACCEPTED THE FUN DS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 30,61,000/- FROM HER HUSBAND, SHRI KHALUR RAJEEV. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMI TTEDLY, THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 30,61,000/- IN THE ACCOUNT OF PONDICHERRY STATE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 62,50,000/- IN ITA NO.1540/15 :- 5 -: INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER GIFTED A SUM OF ` 60 LAKHS. THOUGH NO MATERIAL WAS FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BANK STA TEMENT AND REGISTERED SALE DEED BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SUBSTANTI ATE THE CLAIM OF SOURCE OF HER MOTHER FOR MAKING THE GIFT. THE CIT( A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER HAS SOLD 83,615 SQ FT L AND THROUGH A POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT AND THAT MONEY WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEES MOTHER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER HAS ENOUGH FUND FLOW FOR MAKING D EPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 60 LAKHS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 7. NOW COMING TO ` 30,61,000/- THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ABOVE SAID MONEY WAS RECEIVED FROM HER HUSBAND, SHR I KHALUR RAJEEV. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SHRI KHALUR RAJEEV WAS EM PLOYED IN DUBAI. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF THE NRE ACCOUNT O F HER HUSBAND WITH CANARA BANK. AFTER EXAMINING THE BANK STATEMENT, TH E CIT(A) SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAD ENOUGH SOURCE FOR GIVING A SUM OF ` 30,61,000/- . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED ITA NO.1540/15 :- 6 -: OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SA ME IS CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MARCH, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 18 TH MARCH, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF