Sri K.Viswanathan, Vellakoil V. ACIT, Erode

ITA 239/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5214 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TAPAS KUMAR DUTTA
• Assessee Lawyers: R MAHADEVAN
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH C : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NO. 239/MDS/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI K.VISWANATHAN S/O SHRI KUMARASAMY GOUNDER 184, AMMAN KOIL STREET VELLAKOIL 638 111 VS THE ACIT CIRCLE II ERODE [PAN ACSPV3704C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.MAHADEVAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TAPAS KUMAR DUTTA O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, COI MBATORE, DATED 23.12.2008. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE SUSTAINED ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED A LOAN OF ` 5 LAKHS FROM HIS HUF. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS LOAN IS NOT PROVED. BUT AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE HUF HAD ENOUGH AGRICULTURAL INCOME AN D OUT OF THE ACCUMULATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME, IT HAS ADVANCED TH E MONEY TO THE ITA 239/09 :- 2 -: ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A LOAN OF ` 5 LAKHS FROM HIS HUF. THE HUF OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM WHICH IT HAS BEEN SHOWING AGRICULTURAL IN COME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT NOTICE ANY DISCREPANCY AT THE TIME OF SURVEY CONDUCTED U/S 133A OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO EVIDENC E ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THAT THE HUF DOES NOT HAVE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE MAIN REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS DURING SURVEY IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF ` 18 LAKHS BUT HE SHOWED THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED THEREAFTER T O THE TUNE OF ` 14,10,000/-. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS SOR T OF ACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR OPINION, THE SUM OF ` 5 LAKHS TAKEN AS LOAN FROM HIS HUF STAND EXPLAINED. THIS ADDITION CANNO T BE SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.4 .2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5 TH MAY, 2011 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR