DCIT, Trichy V. R.Ravishankar, Trichy

ITA 1731/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7367 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S RENGA RAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

, , [ : ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI [ CAMP: MADURAI ) . . . ! , ' # $ %& .()(*, , # - BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $./ ITA NO.1731/MDS/2015 ' * /* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I(1), TRICHY. V. SHRI R. RAVISHANKAR, GF-9, BLOCK II KARUDA AVENUE, MELUR ROAD, SRIRANGAM, TRICHY. PAN : AJVPR 3409 G (12/ APPELLANT) (3412/ RESPONDENT) 12 5 6 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RENGA RAJAN, JCIT 3412 5 6 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE 5 7, / DATE OF HEARING : 16.02.2017 89/ 5 7, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1, TIRUC HIRAPALLI, DATED 20.05.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. SHRI S. RENGA RAJAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSIT IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT TO 2 I.T.A. NO.1731/MDS/15 THE EXTENT OF ` 84,67,000/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DEPOSITS ARE MADE FROM T HE BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND WAS ALS O DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., WERE NOT EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. W HEN THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., AN ADDITION OF ` 84,67,000/- WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'), THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEA LS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. REFERRING TO ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REAL IZED ` 2.3 CRORES FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND. ACCORDING T O THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS AND TRANSFERRE D THE LAND THROUGH A POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT. THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO RECEIVED SOME AMOUNT AS ADVANCE AND PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF P ROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER. ON PERUSAL OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, IT WAS MENTIONED AS TO BE AUDIT. THE CIT(APPEALS) HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF THE 3 I.T.A. NO.1731/MDS/15 ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD S UFFICIENT FUNDS TO DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE L D. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER IS BASED UPON UNAUDITED LEDGER COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 84,67,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THERE ARE UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEDGER AC COUNT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONTAINED ALL THE INFO RMATION ABOUT THE CASH DEPOSITS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, CASH BOOK WAS PART OF COMPUTER PRINT OUTS WHICH CONTAINED THE INFORMATION REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS. THE DEPOSITS ARE REFLECTED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AS CONTRA ENTRIES, WHICH MEANS THE CASH HAS ALREADY BEEN WITH DRAWN FROM CASH BOOK AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CASH BOOK WAS PART OF COMPUTER PRINT OUTS, WHIC H WAS MAINTAINED IN THE TALLY ACCOUNT PACKAGE. THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO REALIZED SALE PROCEEDS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2.3 CRORES. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS, THE ENTIRE AM OUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE REVENUE CANNOT DISPUTE THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH BALANCE WITH THE 4 I.T.A. NO.1731/MDS/15 ASSESSEE AS HELD BY PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. SMT. PREMWATI (2009) 221 CTR 576. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEDGER EXTRACTS OF BANK ACCOU NT AND BANK PASSBOOK. THE ENTRIES IN THE LEDGER HAVE BEEN PASS ED IN THE CASH BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THE L EDGER EXTRACTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXTRACT OF L EDGER OF THE ASSESSEE AND BANK PASSBOOK, FOUND THAT THE ENTIRE C ASH DEPOSIT OF ` 84,67,000/- WAS FULLY EXPLAINED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, ALL THE ENTRIES WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND THE ENTI RE EXTRACTS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A DEPOSIT OF ` 84,67,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITI ON ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOUR CE OF DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED EXTRACT OF LEDGER ACCOUNT , CASH BOOK AND PASSBOOK BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT (APPEALS) AFTER EXAMINING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, FOUND T HAT THE ENTIRE 5 I.T.A. NO.1731/MDS/15 TRANSACTION WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. THE CIT(APP EALS) ALSO FOUND THAT THE BANK DEPOSITS ARE REFLECTED IN THE L EDGER. THE ACCOUNTS HAS CONTRA ENTRY SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS MAI NTAINING THE ACCOUNTS IN TALLY PACKAGE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR THE DEPOSIT OF ` 84,67,000/-. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (%& .()(* ) ( . . . ! ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) , #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' # /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, ;$ /DATED, THE 31 ST MARCH, 2017. KRI. 5 3'7 ! 3'7' /DR 6. !?* @ /GF.