D.Ashokmani, Thiruvallur V. ITO Ward 2, Kancheepuram

ITA 2595/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2971 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / I.T.A. NO.2595/CHNY/2018 '' /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI D.ASHOKMANI, NEW NO.2/972N, OLD NO.486 ST PERUMAL NAGAR, VEPPAMPATTU TIRUVALLUR-602 204. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TIRUVALLUR. PAN: AIUPA0853H ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : NONE /RESPONDENT BY : MR.SRIDHAR DORA, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.02.2019 / O R D E R PER S.JAYARAMAN, AM: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO. 3 & 4/CIT(A)-7/2017-18 DATED 18.06.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, THE AO, INTER ALIA, HAD CALLED INFORMATION FROM ID BI BANK, TIRUVALLUR ABOUT THE ASSESSEES BANK STATEMENTS. ON PERUSAL, H E OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF 77,64,532/-, WHILE THE 2 ITANO.2595/CHNY/2018 ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED ONLY GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.12, 27,239/- THAT TOO ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS. AFTER SEVERAL REMINDERS, THE AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF T OTAL INCOME ALONG WITH RECASTED P&L ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET, EXTRACTS OF BANK STATEMENTS AND EXTRACTS OF CASH BOOK STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING REAL ESTATE BUSINESS I.E. PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND APAR T FROM THE TRAVEL BUSINESS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND ADM ITTED REVISED NET PROFIT OF RS.5,62,088/-. WITH REGARD TO THE QUERY R AISED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF A DEBIT OF 34,58,490/- TOWARDS LAND PURCHASE ALONG WITH OTHER MAJOR EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER HA D ADMITTED THAT THE SALES SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOU NT OF REAL ESTATE BUSINESS IS HIS COMMISSION RECEIPT BUT COULD NOT EX PLAIN THE COMMISSION AS TO FROM WHOM THEY WERE RECEIVED, THE MODE OF REC EIPT ETC. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH CRED ITS OF 77,64,532/-, SINCE 12,27,239/- ONLY WAS ADMITTED AS RECEIPTS FROM TRAV EL BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE BALANCE OF 65,37,293/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED 67,55,830/- AS AN UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS AND ASSESSED IT AS HIS INCOME. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSES SSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PURS UE THE APPEAL IN SPITE OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES, THE LD CIT(A) HELD FROM THE RECORDS THAT IT IS SEEN THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE HEARING NOTICES NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AS 3 ITANO.2595/CHNY/2018 THERE WERE NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF TH E ASSESSEES CLAIM, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL WITH FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL : 1. THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN COMP LETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143 (3) BY ADDING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS IGNORED THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AS A POWER AGENT AND THE RELATED TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN IDBL ST ATEMENT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE REVISED INCOME STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTIN Y ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH INCLUDES COMMISSION INCOME FROM R EAL ESTATE BUSINESS. 4.THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FAC T THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT RELATES TO TRAVEL BUSINESS A ND TRANSACTION AMOUNT RECEIVED AS A POWER AGENT FROM SALE OF VACAN T PLOTS ON BEHALF OF THE LAND OWNERS. 5. THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJEC TING THE COMMISSION INCOME EARNED FROM THE REAL ESTATE BUSIN ESS WHICH WAS OFFERED BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS WRONGLY ADDED THE GOLD LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/- AVAILED FROM IDBI BANK ON 08.10.2 012 REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 7. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS & ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS THAT MAY BE FURNISHED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE ADDITIONS RS. 67,55,860/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO CURE THE FOLLOWING DEFECTS IN HIS APPEAL:- I) THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 2 DAYS. AFFIDAVIT N OT FILED. II) ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) NOT FILED. 4 ITANO.2595/CHNY/2018 III) GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) NOT FILED. IV) 26AS TO BE FILED & E-CHALLAN NOT ATTESTED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CURED THE ABOVE DEFEC TS. THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING IS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 28.1 1.2018 AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS PLACED ON RECORD, NONE APPEARED FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE. HENCE, THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE . HOWEVER, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DECIDED ON MERIT AS U NDER. 4. WE HEARD THE LD DR AND GONE THROUGH RELEVANT MAT ERIAL. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF 77,64,532/- IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNTS, WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED ONLY GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.12,27,239/- THAT TOO ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS. ALTHOUGH A REVISED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCO ME ALONG WITH RECASTED P&L ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET, EXTRACTS OF BANK STATEMENTS AND EXTRACTS OF CASH BOOK ETC WERE FILED, THE ASSES SEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCES AS TO FROM WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS RECE IVED, THE MODE OF RECEIPT ETC. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH CREDITS OF 77,64,532/-, SINCE 12,27,239/- ONLY WAS ADMITTED AS RECEIPTS FROM TRAVEL BUSINESS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLA IN THE SOURCES OF THE BALANCE OF 65,37,293/- SATISFACTORILY EITHER BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) OR BEFORE US. SINCE THERE A RE NO MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BEFORE US, WE DO NO T FIND ANY REASON TO 5 ITANO.2595/CHNY/2018 INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE A ND HENCE WE DISMISS ALL THE GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 5. IN THE RESULT , THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) (S.JAYARAMAN) ( ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) /CHENNAI, $ /DATED 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 SOMU () *) /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. + () /CIT(A) 4. + /CIT 5. ) / /DR 6. 2 /GF