Smt. Punitha Balakrishnan, Tiruvannamalai V. ITO, Tiruvannamalai

ITA 2138/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6194 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC C BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2138/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SMT. PUNITHA BALAKRISHNAN, K.V.R. MODERN RICE MILL, NEW NO.203, OLD NO.56-A, ANNA SALAI, TINDIVANAM ROAD, THIRUVANNAMALAI 606 601 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI. PAN: AOYPB2411C ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR,ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.09.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-13, CHENNAI DATED 30.05.2016 IN ITA NO.119/CIT(A)-13/20 09-10 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S .143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HER APPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE 2 ITA NO.2138/MDS/2016 (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMATION THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE LD.AO AMOUNTING TO RS.5 LAKHS BEING THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEES SON. (II) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE LD.AO AMOUNTING TO RS.96,000/- TOWARDS LOW DRAWING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL EARNING INCOME FROM DE-HUSKING OF PADDY GRAINS, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0 ON 11.03.2010 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT, ON 06.07.2010. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FO R SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS REFRAMED WHEREIN THE LD.AO H AD MADE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED GIFTS AN D RS.96,000/- TOWARDS POOR DRAWING. 4. GROUND NO. 2(I) : UNEXPLAINED GIFT OF RS.5 LAKHS:- DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFT OF RS.20 LAKHS FROM HER SON SHRI B. KRISHNASAMY. O N FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE ISSUE IT WAS FOUND THAT GIFT RECEIVE D FROM HER SON TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15 LAKHS WAS GENUINE. HOWEVER T HE ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO.2138/MDS/2016 COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GIFT OF THE REMAINING AMOUN T OF RS.5 LAKHS. SHE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.5 L AKHS WAS WITHDRAWN BY HER SON FROM BANK ACCOUNTS ON DIFFEREN T DATES AMOUNTING TO RS.2 LAKHS & RS.3 LAKHS WHICH WERE HAN DED OVER TO HER. HOWEVER THE LD.A.O FOUND THAT SHRI B. KRISHNA SAMY HAD NOT HANDED OVER THE AFORESAID AMOUNT TO HER. LATER THE ASSESSEE SHIFTED HER STAND BY STATING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM HER DAUGHTER SMT. RAJESWARI BALAKRISH NAN. THE SOURCE OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS SAID TO BE THE AMOUNT RECE IVED FROM SMT. RAJESWARI BALAKRISHNANS BROTHER AMOUNTING TO RS.8,39,120/- WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO HER NRE ACCO UNT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN DIFFERENT STAND ON DIFFERENT OCCATIONS THE LD.AO OPINED THAT THE GIFT AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS CAN NOT BE TREATED AS GENUINE AND THEREFORE ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.1. ON APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO BECAUSE IN THE REMAND REPORT IT WAS REVEALED THAT T HE GIFTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AMOUNTING TO RS.5 LAK HS IS NOT A DIRECT GIFT FROM THE DONOR TO THE DONEE BUT IT WAS ROUTED THROUGH CIRCUITOUS MANNER LEADING TO THE DOUBT THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS 4 ITA NO.2138/MDS/2016 ONLY ATTEMPTING TO ACCOUNT FOR THE SOURCE OF THE GI FTS WHICH SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED. 4.2 BEFORE US THE LD.AR ARGUED BY SUBMITTING THAT T HE SOURCE OF THE GIFT WAS ESTABLISHED AND THE LD.REVENUE AUTH ORITIES HAD TREATED THE GIFT OF RS.5 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE AD DITION MADE FOR RS.5 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED GIFT MAY BE DELETED. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE LD.REVEN UE AUTHORITIES. 4.3 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE , IT IS APPARENT THAT THE SOURCE OF THE GIFT IS GENUINE AND ACCOUNTE D. ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MADE BY THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES ONLY BE CAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN DIFFERENT STAND ON DIFFERENT OCC ASIONS AND HAD ALSO UN CONVINCINGLY EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE GIFT OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE S DAUGHTER FROM HER SON WHICH WAS FINALLY PASSED ON TO HER. C ONSIDERING THESE FACTS, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ORDER O F THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS A NORMAL PRACTICE TO PASS ON CA SH BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND SOMETIME EVEN TO 5 ITA NO.2138/MDS/2016 RECEIVE BACK THE AMOUNT ADVANCED. THIS KIND OF TRA NSFER OF FUNDS BETWEEN THE FAMILY MEMBERS CANNOT BE TREATED AS DUBIOUS TRANSACTIONS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE SOUR CE OF THE FUND AND THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUND HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AND ARE NOT DISPUTED. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT RIGHT O N THE PART OF THE LD.AO AND THE LD.CIT(A) TO HOLD THAT THE GIFT RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.5 LAKHS AS NOT GENUINE. H ENCE, I HEREBY DIRECT THE LD.AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD.AO AMOUNTING TO RS.5 LAKHS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED G IFT. 5. GROUND NO. 2 (II) : ADDITION OF RS.96,000/- TOWARDS LOW DRAWING:- IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED DRAWING AS RS.24,000/- FOR THE ENTIRE PRE VIOUS YEAR. CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE WAY OF LIVING THE LD.AO OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE INCURRED AT LEAST AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.10,000/- PER MONTH FOR HER FAMILY MAINTENANCE. THEREFORE THE LD.AO ADDED RS.96,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS POOR DRAWING. ON AP PEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) AGREEING WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD.AO CONF IRMED HIS ORDER. I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS ADDITION MA DE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. AS EXPLAINED BY THE 6 ITA NO.2138/MDS/2016 ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEES CHILDREN WERE NON-RESIDENT S AND HAD ENOUGH SOURCED TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO THEIR PARENTS. IN THIS SITUATION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER FAMILY WERE SPENDING MONEY FOR THEIR PERSONAL M AINTENANCE FROM THEIR UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THEREFORE, I HEREBY DIRECT THE LD.AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS.96,000/- I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS POOR DRAWING. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /CHENNAI, $% /DATED 13 TH , SEPTEMBER, 2017 RSR % '( )( /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. (-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF