Mr. V. Sarasvathi, CHENNAI V. ITO, Tiruppur

ITA 2216/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5936 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Gift; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2216/CHNY/2013 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 V. SARASVATHI, 30B, AMARJOTHI AS NAGAR, NALLUR, TIRUPUR 641 606. PAN : AMNPS 7420 B V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), TIRUPUR. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.01.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, COIMBATOR E, DATED 30.10.2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS A DEPOSIT OF 1,21,00,000/- IN CASH ON 27.11.2008 IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ING VYSYA BANK LTD. 2 I.T.A. NO.2216/CHNY/13 ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 10,00,000/-, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXT ENT OF 1,11,00,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A SUM OF 61,00,000/- WAS DRAWN FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S BALU PROCESS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. A CCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, M/S BALU PROCESS IS A DYING UNIT. AS REGA RDS WITHDRAWAL OF 61,00,000/- FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF CAPITAL AND CURRENT AC COUNTS. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS WITHDRA WAL OF 61,00,000/- ON TWO OCCASIONS FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THIS W AS DISBELIEVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED GIFT F ROM FATHER-IN-LAW AND CASH RECEIPT OF 23,00,000/- FROM HER HUSBAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALS O CLAIMED RECEIPT OF 20,00,000/- FROM HAND LOAN FROM FOUR PERSONS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED ALL THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY BASE. THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT RE- APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAS C ONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORD ING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ACCOUNT CLEARLY SHOWS THE WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAV E CONFIRMED THE ORDER 3 I.T.A. NO.2216/CHNY/13 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COU NSEL, 20,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM FOUR PERSONS AS LAND LEASE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED SINCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES ARE FILED BEFORE THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A GIFT OF 12,00,000/- FROM FATHER-IN-LAW AS SOURCE FOR DEPOSIT. THIS WA S ALSO REJECTED WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. 4. WE HEARD SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE L D.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS A DEPOSIT OF 1,21,00,000/- AS ON 27.11.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE TO THE EXTENT OF 10,00,000/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBEL IEVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 1,11,00,000/-. WITH REGARD TO WITHDRAWAL FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS REALIZATION OF SALE OF STOCK TO THE EXTENT O F 25,12,950/- AND SALE OF MACHINERIES TO THE EXTENT OF 28,99,790/- AND ALSO LEASE RENTAL OF 6,56,250/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM CLOSED ITS OPERATION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE FOR SA LE OF STOCK AS WELL AS SALE OF MACHINERIES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE SALE OF STOCK AND TO SUPPORT THE SALE O F MACHINERIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE D ECLARED A LOSS OF 2,49,355/- IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AFTER DEBITING VARIOUS EXPENSES. 4 I.T.A. NO.2216/CHNY/13 MOREOVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BUSINESS OR SOUR CE OF INCOME, IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE ENTIRE SALE OF STOCK AND MACHINER IES WERE ALLOWED TO BE WITHDRAWN BY ONE PARTNER IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ? THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT W ERE MANUFACTURED OR COOKED UP TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. HEN CE, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOR SAL E OF STOCK OR SALE OF MACHINERIES, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THA T THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AFTERTHOUGHT AND THERE WAS HUG E CASH DEPOSIT ON A SINGLE DAY, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF 61,00,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM S ACCOUNT. HENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTE RFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CON FIRMED. 5. NOW COMING TO GIFT OF 12,00,000/- SAID TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW SHRI APPACHIAPPA GO UNDER, THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED A UNREGISTERED GIFT DEED DATED 08.11.2008 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A COPY OF SUCH GIFT DEED IS NOT FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE O R BY THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE DONORS HAVE NOT EX PLAINED THE SOURCE FOR GIFT OF 12,00,000/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SOURCE FOR GIFT OF 12,00,000/- BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER-IN-LAW, THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO GENUINE TRANSACTION FOR THE PURPO SE OF ESTABLISHING 5 I.T.A. NO.2216/CHNY/13 CASH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWOR THINESS OF CREDITORS. IN THIS CASE, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS GIFT AMOUNT FROM FATHER-IN- LAW, THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTH INESS OF CREDITORS OR THE DONORS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED. THEREFORE, THE CI T(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. NOW COMING TO CASH RECEIPT OF 23,00,000/- FROM THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS A CASH BALANCE OF 16,24,598/- AS ON 15.11.2008 IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI A. VASUDEVAN, THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND THERE WAS NO CASH WITHDRAWAL OF ANY AMOUNT. IN THE CASE OF SHRI VASUDEVANS ASSESSMENT, THE SOU RCE CLAIMED BY SHRI VASUDEVAN SUCH AS RECEIPT OF CASH ADVANCE EARLIER F OR MACHINERY PURCHASE FROM SHRI S.K. PANDIAN, SHRI R. NAGARAJ AN D SHRI D. PALANISAMY WERE NOT ESTABLISHED. IN THE CASE OF SH RI VASUDEVANS ASSESSMENT, THE SOURCE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT ATTAINED FINALITY. SINCE THE SOURCE FOR CREDITORS WAS FOUND TO BE NOT AVAILABLE FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF 23,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CONFIR MED. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6 I.T.A. NO.2216/CHNY/13 7. NOW COMING TO LAND LEASE OF 20,00,000/-, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT DUE TO POLLUTION CONTROL PROBLEM, THE PARTNERS HIP FIRM M/S BALU PROCESS DECIDED TO CLOSE DOWN THE OPERATION AND THE LAND AND BUILDING WERE LEASED OUT AND AN ADVANCE OF 20,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM ONE SHRI SUNDARAM, SHRI SHYAM JAYAKUMAR, SHRI MURUGANAN THAM AND SMT. RAJESWARI. ADMITTEDLY, THE LAND AND BUILDING WERE OF DYING UNIT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT WAS LEASED TO ONE SHRI MURU GANANTHAM WHO APPEARS TO BE A DRIVER BY PROFESSION. SHRI MURUGAN ANTHAM EARNS ONLY 7500/- PER MONTH. IT IS NOT KNOWN THE OBJECT OF LE ASING OUT OF DYING UNIT TO A DRIVER. IN RESPECT OF THREE LESSEES, NAMELY, SHRI SUNDARAM, SHRI SHYAM JAYAKUMAR AND SMT. RAJESWARI, NO MATERIAL EVI DENCE APPEARS TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIAT E THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LESSEES FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNA L IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIN D ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7 I.T.A. NO.2216/CHNY/13 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND JANUARY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 22 ND JANUARY, 2019. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-II, COIMBATORE 4. 2 ;3 /CIT-III, COIMBATORE 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.