C.PETCHIAPPAN, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-19(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2766/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5749 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D/SMC’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ी मनोज कु मार अ#वाल ,लेखा सद* के सम+। BEFORE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2766/Chny/2019 ( िनधा4रण वष4 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri C. Petchiappan No.81/136, Pon Guru Illam, Padi, Mugappair Road, Chennai – 600 050. बनाम/ V s. ITO Non Corporate Ward-19(1), Chennai. थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./P AN /GI R No . ANX P P -5 0 1 2 -H (अ पीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri I. Dinesh (Advocate) – Ld. AR थ की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19-09-2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19-09-2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 25-06-2019 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act on 29-12-2016. The registry has noted a delay of 1 day in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR. Considering the period of delay, I condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication on merits. ITA No.2766/Chny/2019 - 2 - 2. The only grievance of the assessee is addition of cash deposit u/s 68 for Rs.11.39 Lacs. The Ld. AR attributed the same to the agricultural income and also advanced argument to submit that no such addition could be made u/s 68 since the assessee was not required to maintain books of accounts. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that no agricultural income was admitted in the return of income. Having considered rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The assessee being government employee is stated to be working in an ESI dispensary. 3. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that during the year, the assessee deposited Rs.16.52 Lacs in certain Bank account. Upon perusal of details, it further transpired that the assessee had two bank accounts but it disclosed only one bank account. The assessee merely submitted that it was receiving salary in his bank account maintained with State Bank of India and he has been withdrawing and re-depositing the amounts in Saving Bank Account held with Karur Vysya Bank. Since the assessee could not substantiate the claim, the salary received by the assessee and GPF advances received during the years were reduced from cash deposits and balance Rs.11.39 Lacs was added to its income as unexplained cash deposits u/s 68. 4. During appellate proceedings, the submissions made by the assessee were subjected to remand proceedings. The assessee, inter- alia, submitted that the amount of Rs.7.60 Lacs was sourced out of agricultural income which was supported by Income Certificate issued by Village Administrative Officer, Lease Agreement entered into by the ITA No.2766/Chny/2019 - 3 - assessee with the owner of the agricultural land, extract of Chitta and Adangal Register. However, the claim was rejected since these documents were not in the name of the assessee. Finally, Ld. CIT(A) granted relief of Rs.1.26 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. I find that the only reason to disallow the claim of agricultural income is the fact that the documents supplied by the assessee were not in its name. However, the lease agreement dated 23.01.2012 is in the name of the assessee. As per this agreement, the assessee has taken on lease 10 acres of land for 3 years on certain terms and conditions. At the same time, it could also be seen that the bank account was not disclosed and no agricultural income was offered in the return of income. No transaction for agricultural income has been routed through bank account. Considering the factual matrix, the claim is to be accepted partially. Accordingly, I direct Ld. AO to accept the agricultural income to the extent of one-half i.e., Rs.3.80 Lacs. The balance addition stand confirmed. 6. The Ld. AR has submitted that no such addition could have been made u/s 68. However, I see that the addition has been made only for unexplained money and only the provision has been mis-quoted. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee also assails legality of assessment proceedings. However, these grounds have not been urged and no arguments have been raised against the same. These grounds stand dismissed. ITA No.2766/Chny/2019 - 4 - 7. In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed. Order pronounced on 19 th September, 2022. Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद* / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे*ई / Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 19-09-2022 EDN/- आदेश की Iितिलिप अ #ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. यथ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु /CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF