Manoharmal Jain, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2307/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2679 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Peak credit

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , # '$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . /ITA NO. 2307/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 MANOHARMAL JAIN, NO.33, GENERAL MUTHIAH MUDALI STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI 600 079. PAN AABPM0686M ( /APPELLANT) V. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-5(3), CHENNAI 600 006.. RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, FCA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT ! / DATE OF HEARING : 18.02.2016 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.03.2016 % / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) DATED 16 .11.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. - - ITA 2307/15 2 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE INVOKING THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIO NS OF SEC.69 OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 38,95,480/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SOURCE OF DEPOSIT. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF DEPOSIT. HENCE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TREATED THE CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 33,75,280/- IN THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ` 8,75,000/- IN ICICI BANK TOTALING TO ` 38,94,280/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT. ON APPEA L, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUT HORITIES CONSIDERED THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ICICI BANK AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AND THEY MUST HAVE CONSIDERED ONLY THE PEAK CREDIT INSTEAD OF GROSS AM OUNT OF - - ITA 2307/15 3 DEPOSITS OF THESE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE DEPOSITS WITH THE BANKS AFTER IMMEDIATE W ITHDRAWALS, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO TAKE PEAK CREDIT AS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE NEXUS BETWEEN WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS INTO BANK. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT ONCE PEAK CREDIT H AS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION, THERE CANNOT BE FURTHER AD DITION TOWARDS THE INTEREST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BANK DEPO SIT IS NOTHING BUT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM THE LOANS GIVEN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. ACCO RDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATI ONS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 16 TH OF MARCH, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $% & ) ( ' ( ) $ ) *%+,-,./01,2345,.62,+778,293 : ;< /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ;<=>>70.?,.?@A1BA2 ': /CHENNAI, C; /DATED, THE 16 TH MARCH, 2016. MPO* - - ITA 2307/15 4 ;D EFGF /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. H3 /CIT(A) 4. H /CIT 5. FIJ K /DR 6. JLM /GF.