Shri C.Saravanan, CHENNAI V. Addl. CIT, Madurai

ITA 2035/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 203521714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Section: 68; 132

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 ./ ITA NO.2035/MDS/2012 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI C. SARAVANAN, 7/120, KHANPALAYAM 4 TH STREET, MADURAI 625 009. PAN : BVGPS 9206 N V. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, MADURAI. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 05.11.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.11.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, SALEM, DA TED 28.08.2012 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2 I.T.A. NO.2035/MDS/12 2. SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND ` 12.10. LAKHS IN CASH IN THE CLOTH POUCH OF THE ASSESSEE. A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED UN DER SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE A CT'). THE REVENUE OFFICIAL HAS ALSO FOUND A SALE BILL DATED 1 7.08.2006 ISSUED BY M/S SURANA CORPORATION LTD. ON SALE OF GOLD BAR TO THE EXTENT OF ` 9,84,055/-. THE ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION, AC CORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IS THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE GOLD BAR TO THE EXTENT OF ` 9,84,055/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT THE GOLD WAS PURCHASED FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 9,84,055/- AND THE SALE AMOUNT OF GOLD PURCHASED WAS USED FOR PURCHASE OF GOLD ON 06.06.2007. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE PURCHASE OF GOLD VALUE OF ` 9,84,055/- IS CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ONLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TH E CASH FOUND AND THE GOLD SOLD ALONE SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IN FACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE CIT(APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. H OWEVER, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISB ELIEVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(APPEALS), 3 I.T.A. NO.2035/MDS/12 THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL, AGREED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN PURCHASE OF GOLD BAR TO THE EXTENT OF 1 KG FOR A SUM OF ` 9,84,055/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE MONEY FOUND WAS SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD BAR. THE MONEY BELONGED TO ONE SHRI SURESH, WAS USED TO PURC HASE THE GOLD BAR. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSEES CL AIM THAT THE MONEY FOUND BELONGED TO SHRI SURESH AND SHRI SURESH S MONEY WAS USED FOR PURCHASING THE GOLD BAR, THEN THE SALE BILL SHOULD ALSO CONTAIN THE NAME OF SHRI SURESH. IN FACT, THE SALE BILL ISSUED BY M/S SURANA CORPORATION LTD. WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HOW SH RI SURESHS MONEY WAS USED FOR PURCHASE OF GOLD BAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SHRI SURESH ENTRUSTED THE MON EY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASING GOLD BAR, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SURESH. 4 I.T.A. NO.2035/MDS/12 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT APPEARS SIX PERSONS, INCLUDING THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, WERE APPREHENDED BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIREC TORATE AT FORT RAILWAY STATION, CHENNAI, WHILE MOVING AROUND IN A SUSPICIOUS MANNER. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON RECEIVING INFOR MATION FROM THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, CONDUCTED A SEARCH UNDER S ECTION 132 OF THE ACT AND FOUND A SUM OF ` 12.10 LAKHS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN BROKERAGE BUSINESS OF GOLD JEWELL ERY, HE USED TO BUY GOLD FROM CHENNAI ON BEHALF OF VARIOUS PERSO NS AT MADURAI AND EARNS COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAI NED THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 12.10. LAKHS, WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE IN THE POSSESSI ON OF THE ASSESSEE, BELONGED TO ONE SHRI SURESH AND THE S AME WAS USED FOR PURCHASING THE GOLD BAR WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD AS PER THE SALE BILL DATED 17.08.2006. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED B Y THE LD. D.R., IF THE MONEY BELONGED TO SHRI SURESH WAS INVESTED IN P URCHASING THE GOLD BAR, THE GOLD BAR OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SOLD ON B EHALF OF SHRI SURESH, BUT THE SALE BILL WAS APPARENTLY IN THE NAM E OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXP LAIN HOW HE WAS 5 I.T.A. NO.2035/MDS/12 ABLE TO PURCHASE GOLD BAR WHICH WAS SOLD AS PER THE SALE BILL DATED 17.08.02006. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE C IT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY TH E SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-II, MADURAI 4. 1 92 /CIT, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.