Shri T. Psalmjebraj, Arakkonam V. ITO, Vellore

ITA 2600/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7659 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B NAVEEN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC A BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2600/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SHRI T. PSALMJEBRAJ, 373/149, DURAISAMY NAGAR, ARAKKONAM VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (3) (1), VELLORE PAN: BIMPP6058C ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. NAVEEN KUMAR, JCIT ! /DATE OF HEARING : 06.02.2017 '# ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.02.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, CHENNAI DATED 14.07.2016 IN ITA NO.16/CIT(A)-13/AY 2011-12 AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS AP PEAL, HOWEVER THE LONE ISSUE THAT SURVIVES FOR ADJUDICATION IS THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BANK DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.1, 70,000/-. 2 I.T.A. NO.2600/MDS/2016 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CONDUCTING CONVENTION MEETINGS, PRAYERS, ORCHESTRA ETC., ON FULL TIME BASIS, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 05.03.2012 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,59,000/-. INITIALLY, THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER THE FILE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND FINALLY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 31.03.2015 U/S. 143 R.W.S. 147/148 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE LD. AO MADE ADDITIO N FOR RS.3,46,000/- BEING THE OPENING BALANCE AGAINST WHICH SOURCE COUL D NOT BE ESTABLISHED AND ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,70,000/- WITH RES PECT TO CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT ON THE FOLLOWING D ATES:- 29.07.2010 RS.20,000/- 11.08.2010 RS.90,000/- 06.09.2010 RS.20,000/- 01.10.2010 RS.20,000/- 28.10.2010 RS.20,000/- TOTAL RS.1,70,000/- 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,46,000/- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF THE INCOME RETURN BY THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE EARLIER YEARS AND BASED ON THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS RS.1,70,000/- CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) OPINED THA T THE SOURCE FOR SUCH DEPOSITS WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO, WHO HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3 I.T.A. NO.2600/MDS/2016 5. AT THE OUTSET, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDI T U/S.68 OF THE ACT, BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ALREADY ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.3,46,000/-. THERE IS EVERY POSSIBILITY THAT THE BANK DEPOSIT OF RS.1,70,000/- COULD HAVE BEEN M ADE FROM THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE SOURCE OF CAS H DEPOSIT IS EXPLAINED. HENCE, IM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIO N SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RS.1,70,000/- IS NOT WARRANTED. ACCORDIN GLY, I HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS.1,70,000/ -. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THE 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $% /CHENNAI, &' /DATED 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2017 JR. ' )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. *-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF.