Shri T.V. Krishna Rao, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2212/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7601 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 2212/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 SHRI. T.V. KRISHNA RAO, NO.1/458, BAZZAR STREET, KADAMBATHUR, TIRUVALLUR, CHENNAI 600 109. [PAN AHHPK 6752H] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS RANGE VIII, CHENNAI. ( !' / APPELLANT) ( #$!' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 02-03-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-03-2017 % / O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST AN ORDER DATED 23.02.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, CHENNAI. ITA NO. 2212/MDS/2016. :- 2 -: 2. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY FIFTY DA YS. CONDONATION PETITION HAS BEEN FILED. REASON SHOWN FOR THE DELAY SEEMS TO BE JUSTIFIED. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. DELAY IS CONDONED. APPEAL IS ADMITTED. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ADDITION OF C.27, 89,000/- CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN ING VYSYA BANK WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING AN INCOME OF C.12,75,832/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HA D DEPOSITS AGGREGATING C.27,89,000/- WITH ING VYSYA BANK, ANN A NAGAR BRANCH. EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SOUGHT. IT WAS EXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MONEY DEPOSITED BELONGED TO A S ISTER CONCERN NAMED M/S. ARAVINDHTRADERS AND IT WAS RETURNED TO T HEM IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2008 THROUGH BANK TRANSFER FROM VERY SAME ACCOUNT TO THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. ARAVINDH TRADERS IN CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. HOWEVER, THIS WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND AN ADDITION WAS MADE. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT SUCCES S. ITA NO. 2212/MDS/2016. :- 3 -: 5. ASSESSEE THEREAFTER MOVED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER AT PARAGRAPHS 3 TO 5 OF ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.773/MDS/2012, DATED 06.09.2012. 3. THE DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE ISSUE. 4. CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING T HE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ADDITIO N OF C27,89,000/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DEPOSITS IN CASH MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ING VYSYA BANK ON 31.3.2008 AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT T HE SAID AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE SISTER CONCERN M/S ARAV INDH TRADERS AND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RETURNED TO TH EM IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2008 THROUGH BANK TRANSFER FROM ING VYSYA BANK TO THE ACCOUNT OF M/S ARAVINDH TRADERS W ITH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) H AS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON TH E GROUND THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S ARAVINDH TR ADERS THE ASSESSEES NAME WAS NOT APPEARING AS SUNDRY DEB TOR. NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE CIT (A). WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 7 O F HIS ORDER HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SO URCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS RECEIPTS FROM DEBTO RS AND AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WI TH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AS BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US HAVE AGREED THAT T HE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER VERIFICATION OF ALL RELEVANT FAC TS AND THEN ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER S OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER ALL OWING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS ONCE AGAIN TAKEN BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. DESPITE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, IT ITA NO. 2212/MDS/2016. :- 4 -: SEEMS NOBODY ENTERED APPEARANCE. AS PER LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER NO EVIDENCE WAS FORTHCOMING FROM THE ASSESSEE. HENCE HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT MAKING THE VERY SAME ADDITION AS DONE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 7. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN MOVED IN APPEAL BEFO RE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ACCOUNT OF THE SISTER CONCERN NAMELY M/S. ARAVINDH TRADERS WAS ALREADY FURNISHED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FIRST ROUND OF HEARING. FURTHER AS PER ASSESSEE, CASH DEPOSITS HA D COME FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SAID SISTER CONCERN. ASSESSE E ALSO REQUESTED LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO OBTAIN A R EMAND REPORT FROM THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND UNDERTOOK TO CO -OPERATE WITH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EXCEPT FOR MAKING SAME ARGUMENT S ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM OR THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER AND HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 8. NOW BEFORE ME, LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT ALL RELEVANT MATERIALS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER IN M/S. AR AVINDH TRADERS FROM WHICH IT HAD RECEIVED THE MONEY. ITA NO. 2212/MDS/2016. :- 5 -: 9. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AFT ER VERIFYING BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. ARAVINDH TRADERS WHICH DID NO T HAVE ASSESSEES NAME IN IT. IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE MONEY WAS TEMPORILY BORROWED FROM M/S. ARAVINDH TRADERS IN CA SH AND GIVEN BACK TO THEM THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, IT COULD HAVE VERY WELL PRODUCED THE RELEVANT LEDGER/DAY BOOK OF M/S. ARAVINDH TRADERS T O PROVE ITS CASE. ESPECIALLY SO SINCE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER IN THE S AID FIRM. DESPITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN, ASSESSEE NEVER DID SO. THE ONLY DOCUMENTATARY EVIDENCE FILED WAS THE AUDITED BALAN CE SHEET OF M/S. ARAVINDH TRADERS. WHEN A CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS. ASSESSEE CANNOT SKIRT THIS DUTY B Y RESORTING TO VAGUE AND IRRELEVANT PLEAS. IN MY OPINION, ASSESSEE WAS N OT ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS DESPITE LARGE NUMBER OF OPPORTU NITIES GIVEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTE RFERE WITH THE ORDERS ITA NO. 2212/MDS/2016. :- 6 -: OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH , 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:7TH MARCH, 2017 KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF