ITO, CHENNAI V. B.Bhuvaneshwari, CHENNAI

ITA 1734/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90703 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DAS GUPTA IRS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! ' , # $% & [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO. 1734/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MEDIA WARD I, CHENNAI 600 034 VS. SMT. B. BHAVANESHWARI NO.18, ANANTHA KRISHNAN STREET CHITRA APARTMENTS, DASARATHAPURAM, SALIGRAMAM, CHENNAI 600 093. [PAN AHNPB 6215A ] ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. DAS GUPTA, IRS, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 21-07-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-07-2015 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VI, CHENN AI, DATED 05.06.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING THE GROUND:- ITA NO. 1734/MDS/2013 :- 2 -: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N DELETING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 40,00,000 /- 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FI LM ARTIST AND FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09 ON 10.12.2009 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF C1,51,110/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. LATER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED C60,00,0 00/- IN AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YE AR. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OF PR OPERTIES FOR C40,00,000/- IN THE FORM OF TWO SALE DEEDS, ONE FOR C30,00,000/- AND OTHER ONE FOR C10,00,000/-. THE PROPERTY IS A CINE MA THEATRE NAMED CENTRAL THEATRES SITUATED IN A VILLAGE NEAR COIMB ATORE BY NAME ANNUR VILLAGE. THE CINEMA THEATRE WAS EQUIPPED WITH ALL THE NECESSARY MACHINERY AND IS IN A RUNNING CONDITION. THE ASSES SEE HAD ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS WITH ICICI BANK , ALWAR THIRUNAGAR BRANCH WITH A/C. 23201503829. THE BALANCE AS ON 31 .05.2007 WAS ONLY C5,922/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OBSERVED T HAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E EXPLAINING THE SOURCE FOR THE INVESTMENTS. THE INVESTMENT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF C40,00,000/- WAS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ADDED BACK BY THE ITA NO. 1734/MDS/2013 :- 3 -: ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERR ED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED T HAT C40,00,000/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE CINEMA THEATRE , WHICH HAD BEEN JOINTLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND W ITH EQUAL SHARES AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD REFLECTED HER SHA RE IN THE BALANCE SHEET, ALONGWITH THE COST OF REGISTRATION DUTIES PA ID. THIS FACT WAS EVIDENCED BY THE BALANCE SHEET ATTACHED TO THE RETU RN OF INCOME AND ALSO FILED BEFORE HIM. SINCE, THE SAID INVESTMENTS HAD BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS WELL AS THE DEPRECIATION SC HEDULE AND THE LEASE RENTALS FROM THE CINEMA THEATRE WERE ALSO PROPERLY CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, IT WAS INCORRECT TO TREAT THE PROPERTY EITHER IN FULL VALUE OF C40,00,000/- OR THE SHARE OF THE ASSE SSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GAVE A FIN DING THAT THE INVESTMENT OF C40,00,000/- IN PROPERTY WAS REFLECTE D IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INCOME EARNED FROM TH AT PROPERTY WAS ITA NO. 1734/MDS/2013 :- 4 -: DULY OFFERED FOR TAXATION AND BEING SO, THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEES RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE COPY OF THE BAL ANCE SHEET FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE ENTRY IN THE BALANCE SHEET RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY. CONSIDERING THE PLEA OF THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND TO DECIDE IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1734/MDS/2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY , 2015 AT CHENNAI SD/- SD/- ( . . . ! ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! ' ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:24.07.2015 KV %&'' ()'*) / COPY TO: ' 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ' +',! / CIT(A) 5. )-.' / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ' + / CIT 6. .0'1 / GF