V.Kannan, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

ITA 1922/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8029 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B LAKSHMINARYANANJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: LAKSHMI SRIRAM
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , ! . ' #$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1919 /MDS./2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10) SMT.C.R.RAJESWARI , OLD NO.89A,NEW NO.12, SANTHOSH NIVAS, EAST AROKIASAMY ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 002. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II(3), COIMBATORE. PAN ANHPR 0699 R ( %& / APPELLANT ) ( '(%& / RESPONDENT ) ./ I.T.A.NO.1922 /MDS./2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10) MR.V.KANNAN , OLD NO.89A,NEW NO.12, SANTHOSH NIVAS, EAST AROKIASAMY ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 002. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II(3), COIMBATORE. PAN AFVPK 1292 E ( %& / APPELLANT ) ( '(%& / RESPONDENT ) ITA NO.1919 & 1922/MDS/2012 2 / APPELLANT BY : MS.LAKSHMI SRIRAM,ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : MR.B.LAKSHMINARYANAN,JCIT, D.R ! / DATE OF HEARING : 13.01.2016 '# ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.02.2016 ) / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSE SSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-I, COIMBATORE DATED 08.08.2012 PERTAI NING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMM ON NATURE, THESE TWO APPEALS ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGET HER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E. 2.1. IN THE CASE OF MR.V.KANNAN, THE PRIMARY GROUN DS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF ` 53,23,000/- OUT OF ` 70,96,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 IN THE CASE OF MR.C.R.RAJESWARI, THE PRIMAR Y GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING TH E ADDITION, IN THE ITA NO.1919 & 1922/MDS/2012 3 HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO 1/4 TH OF RS.12,00,000/- ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND MR.V.KANNAN TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH AND NOT 1/4 TH OF ` 70,96,000/-. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE PURCHASED A PROPERTY JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE SMT.C.R.RAJESWARI IN THE RATIO OF OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY IS 3 : 1 . ACCORDING TO THE A.O, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS AT ` .1,04,82,389/-. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS AT ` 54,14,000/-. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT ON 30.01.2011, THE ASS ESSEE HAD PAID ` 12 LAKHS OVER AND ABOVE THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE DOCU MENT, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO ` 70,96,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PROOF FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 26,15,000/- ON SALE OF GOLD AND FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF ` 15 LAKHS FOR SALE OF HOUSE. ACCORDING TO THE AO, T HE BALANCE AMOUNT ` 29,81,000/- IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED EVIDENCE REGAR DING SALE OF GOLD, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND PRAYED THAT IT MAY BE ADMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEREAFTER, CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT AND ITA NO.1919 & 1922/MDS/2012 4 THE AO SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT ON 27.06.2012. AFTE R GIVING A COPY OF REMAND REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE, FOR WHICH THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY COMMENTS. THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) R EJECTED THE SOURCE OF ` 26,15,000/- AS SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY. FURTHER, R EGARDING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF PROPERTY OF RS.15 LAKHS, THIS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE REASON THAT IT WAS RECE IVED ONLY ON 04.09.2008. HENCE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SOURCE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ` 1 CRORE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE TAKEN AT ` 70,96,000/- BY THE AO. THUS THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING COST AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE DEED 54,14,000 ADD: STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES 4,82,38 9 ADD: EXCESS AMOUNT PAID 12,00,000 TOTAL 70,96,000 ITA NO.1919 & 1922/MDS/2012 5 AS PER THE SALE DEED, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE RATIO OF 3:1 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE, SMT.C.R.RAJE WSARI. ACCORDINGLY IT IS APPORTIONED AT ` 53,23,000/- TO ASSESSEE, ` 17,74,000/- IN THE HANDS OF SMT.C.R.RAJEWSARI AS UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT. AGAINST THIS, BOTH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, ON-MONEY PAYMENT OF ` 12 LAKHS IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THES E TWO PARTIES. IN OUR OPINION, THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE IS AT ` 70,96,000/- AND BOTH THE ASSESSEE HAS NO VALID EXPL ANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF SUCH AMOUNT. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESS EE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE FOR WHICH THE ABOVE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND THE BURDEN CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISCHARGED IN SPITE OF GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE NEC ESSARY EVIDENCE, EVEN BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY C OGENT MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF EXPLAIN ED SOURCE. HENCE, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. ITA NO.1919 & 1922/MDS/2012 6 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY MR.V.KA NNAN IN ITA NO.1922/MDS./2012 & SMT.C.R.RAJEWSARI IN ITA NO.191 9/MDS./2012 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 10 TH OF FEBRUARY,2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (G.PAVAN KUMAR) ( ( $% & ) ) ' CHANDRA POOJARI () JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 10 TH FEBRUARY,2016 . K S SUNDARAM. *+)),-).- /COPY TO: ) 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ) /)'( /CIT(A) 4. ) / /CIT 5. -01 )2 /DR 6. 13)4 /GF