DEEPAK VERGHESE, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-15(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1988/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6197 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R V SREENIVASAN IRS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , , [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 1988/CHNY/2019 ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013. SHRI. DEEPAK VERGHESE, NO.492, THIRD SOUTH MAIN ROAD, KAPALEESWARAR NAGAR, NEELANKARARI, CHENNAI 600 041. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1) CHENNAI. [PAN AEVPD 3983J] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '# $ % / APPELLANT BY : NONE &' '# $ % /RESPONDENT BY : MR. AR.V. SREENIVASAN, IRS, JCIT ( ) $ * /DATE OF HEARING : 12-09-2019 +,! $ * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-10-2019 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 5, CHENNAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 30.1.2019 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR (AY) 2012-2013. ITA NO.1988/2019 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : (1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND OPPOSED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. (2)THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ADDING AS UNEXP LAINED CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS.15,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HA D ACCOUNTED FOR THE CHEQUE RECEIVED BUT THE SAME WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE BANK. THIS WAS SHOWN UNDER CHEQUES DEPOSITED BUT NOT CREDITED UNDER THE BANK RECONCILI ATION STATEMENT (BRS) FOR RS.15,00,000/-. THE ENTRY HAS B EEN REVERSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THIS CHEQUE WAS NOT CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE MONEY AT ALL. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. EVEN THOUGH THE MONEY WAS NOT RECEIVED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS THE SAM E HAS BEEN TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND THE PAYMENT IS ALSO NOT REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DONORS IT RETU RN, THE COPIES OF THE SAME WERE SUBMITTED. THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE UNJUSTIFIED AND THIS TO BE DELETED. (3) FOR THESE REASONS AND FOR ANY OTHER REASONS THA T MAY BE TAKEN UP AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT T HE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR M AY BE GRANTED . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF REAL ESTATE AND CONSULTANCY. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR T HE AY 2012-13 WAS FILED ON 31.07.2013 ADMITTING TOTAL LOSS OF G86,546 /-. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY T HE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI VIDE OR DER DATED 12.03.2015 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF G14,38,578/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE ITA NO.1988/2019 :- 3 -: ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS ON SEVERAL ITEMS WHICH INTER ALIA INCLUDED UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF G15,00,000/-. DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH W AS EXPLAINED BY WAY OF GIFT FROM HIS FATHER G1,15,62,000/-. OUT OF WHICH G1,00,62,000/- STOOD EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS REFERRED TO BALANCE OF G15,00,000/- IT WAS STATED THAT THOUGH ENTRIES WAS MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ACTUALLY THE CHEQ UE WAS NOT ENCASHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THIS AS U NEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND BROUGHT TO TAX. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITION, AN APPEAL WA S PREFERRED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDE R CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TH E APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HEARD THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE IN VOLVED IN THE ITA NO.1988/2019 :- 4 -: PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF G15,00,0 00/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ADMITTEDLY, ASSESSEE OFFERED AN EXPLA NATION THAT G15,00,000/- CHEQUE RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER WAS NO T ENCASHED, THOUGH IT WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. NO DOUBT, THIS ENTRY IS REVERSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON AS TO WHY SAID EXPLANATION CANN OT BE ACCEPTED, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE CHEQUE WAS NOT ENCASHED . THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED. T HUS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019, A T CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - ) / CHENNAI . / DATED: 11TH OCTOBER, 2019. KV $ &*01 21!* / COPY TO: 1 . '# / APPELLANT 3. ( 3* () / CIT(A) 5. 16 &*7 / DR 2. &' '# / RESPONDENT 4. ( 3* / CIT 6. 8 9) / GF