R.Chandrasekaran, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2139/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7750 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PC B
• Assessee Lawyers: J SREE VIDYA SHRI P RAD

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.2139/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI R. CHANDRASEKARAN 20E, POES ROAD, 2 ND STREET TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI 600 016 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD XV(1) CHENNAI [PAN ABYPC 3 2 60 B] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SMT. J. SREE VIDYA, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 17 - 02 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 0 3 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)4, CHENNAI, DATED 30.3.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. SMT. J. SREE VIDYA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLA RING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,64,210/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASS ESSEE WAS REQUESTED BY INDIVIDUALS TO ROUTE THE DONATION THRO UGH HIS BANK ITA NO. 2139/15 :- 2 -: ACCOUNT FOR GETTING ADMISSION AT RAMACHANDRA MEDICA L COLLEGE. THE SAID INDIVIDUALS AGREED TO PAY ` 15,000/- AS COMMISSION TO THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED `29,50,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO RAMACHANDRA MEDICA L COLLEGE BY RTGS ON THE SAME DAY. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED A LETTER FROM SHRI S.V.KUMAR . HE ADMITTED THAT THE MONEY DEPOSI TED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WAS UTILIZED ON 16.11.2009 FOR HIS DAUGHTERS ADMISSION AT RAMACHANDRA MEDICAL COLLEGE. HE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE MONEY WAS TRANSFERRED TO RAMACHANDRA MEDICAL COLLEG E BY RTGS. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SUMMONED ALL THE PERSONS INCLUDING SHRI S.V.KUMAR. SHRI KRISHNAKANTH, SON-IN-LAW OF SHRI S.V.KUMAR AND FOUR OTHER PERSONS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEY ADMI TTED THAT THEY GAVE ONLY ` 3 LAKHS TO SHRI S.V.KUMAR. SHRI S.V.KUMAR, WHO IN ITIALLY GAVE A LETTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, SU BSEQUENTLY, DENIED THE SAME. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSES SEE ACTED ONLY AS A COMMISSION AGENT, THEREFORE, MAKING ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ` 29,50,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT J USTIFIED. AT THE BEST, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, ONLY `15 ,000/- CAN BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 2139/15 :- 3 -: 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY A SUM OF ` 29,50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED BY OTHERS FOR ACCOMMODATING THEM TO GET ADMISSION AT RAMACHANDRA MEDICAL COLLEGE. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, FOUND THAT SHRI S.V. KUMAR DENIED THE CONTENTION OF THE LETTER DATED 27. 8.2012 AND ALSO DISPUTED THE SIGNATURE CONTAINED THEREIN. SHRI KR ISHNAKANTH APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CLAIMED THAT HE GA VE ONLY ` 3 LAKHS AS MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SOURCE FOR MAKING DEPOSIT I N THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 29,5000/-, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, MERELY BECAUSE THE MONEY WAS TRANSFERRED TO RAMACHANDRA MEDICAL CO LLEGE BY RTGS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SOURCE OF I NCOME. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED A SUM OF ` 29,50,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) H AS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADM ITTEDLY, THERE WAS A DEPOSIT OF ` 29,50,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY VARIOUS PERSONS FOR TRANSFERRING THE S AME TO ITA NO. 2139/15 :- 4 -: RAMACHANDRA MEDICAL COLLEGE IN CONNECTION WITH ADMI SSION OF STUDENTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMS THAT THE ENTI RE MONEY WAS TRANSFERRED TO RAMACHANDRA MEDICAL COLLEGE BY RTGS. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 29,50,000/- WAS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK AC COUNT. THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT TO RAMACHANDRA MEDICAL COLLEGE FOR WHATEVER REASON MAY BE APPLICAT ION OF INCOME. THEREFORE, AT ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO RAMACHANDRA MEDICAL COLLEGE EITHER BY RTGS OR OTHER WISE CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BA NK ACCOUNT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT ONE S HRI S.V.KUMAR BORROWED THE MONEY AND DEPOSITED THE SAME IN THE A SSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT FOR BEING TRANSFERRED TO RAMACHANDRA MEDICA L COLLEGE. THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.8.2012 SAID TO BE WRITT EN BY SHRI S.V.KUMAR WAS DENIED BY HIM. IN OTHER WORDS, SHRI S.V.KUMAR DENIED THE FACT OF WRITING LETTER DATED 27.8.2012. HE ALSO CLAIMS THA T THE SIGNATURE APPEARING IN THE LETTER DATED 27.8.2012 DOES NOT BE LONG TO HIM. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE FOR MA KING THE DEPOSIT OF ` 29,50,000/-. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT THE FUNDS WERE USED BY SHRI S.V.KUMAR FOR ADMISSION OF HIS ITA NO. 2139/15 :- 5 -: DAUGHTER. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SH RI S.V.KUMAR DEPOSITED FUNDS IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, T HIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ABOVESAID ` 29,50,000/- DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MARCH, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 18 TH MARCH, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF