MS RAJA, ERODE V. ITO, WARD1(2), ERODE

ITA 280/CHNY/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0998 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ यायपीठ, चे ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी जी मंजूनाथा, लेखा सद के सम , ी अिनके श बनज , ाियक सद एवं BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:280/Chny/2021 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013 Shri. Mariappa Senniappan Raja, No.280, Brough Road, Erode – 638 001 PAN : AEVPR 1501E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(2), Erode – Tamil Nadu (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से/Appellant by : None यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.05.2022 घोषणा क तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2022 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश / // /O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM: The instant appeal was filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (in brevity “the CIT(A)”) bearing Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034535922(1) passed u/s.250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity “the Act”), order dated 30.07.2021 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The instant appeal was generated by the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward – :: 2 :: I.T.A. No.280/Chny/2021 1(2), Erode, passed u/s.144 r.w.s147 of the Act, vide order dated 22.11.2019. 2. The grounds raised by the Assessee are reproduced as follows: “1) The order of the learned CIT(A) is bad in law, non- considerate of relevant factors and against the settled law. 2) The learned CIT(A) did not consider the written submissions filed during the course of hearing properly. [Copy is enclosed]. 3) The learned CIT(A) failed to consider that the very reason for reopening the case of the Appellant is not the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer but a borrowed one. 4) The learned CIT(A)’s observation that the decisions cited by the Appellant do not apply to the facts of the case is blunt, baseless and without any justification. 5) The Order of the CIT(A) is wrong in so far as it failed to appreciate that when the reason for reopening is to “VERIFY the sources for CASH DEPOSITS into Savings Account”, the same is against the scheme of reassessment, thereby making the entire proceedings null and void. 6) The Order of the CIT(A) is erroneous in so far as it failed to appreciate that when the reason for reopening is to “Verify the sources for CASH DEPOSITS into Savings Account” and when the addition was an estimated percent made on the TOTAL CREDITS in the Savings and Current Accounts, the reason for reopening ceased to exist. And, for the other grounds of appeal (factual or legal) that may be raised before at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the present appeal be admitted, the submissions be considered and justice be rendered.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that the Assessee deposited cash in his Savings Bank Account to the tune of Rs.37,58,600/- for the financial Year 2011 – 2012. A notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued & no return :: 3 :: I.T.A. No.280/Chny/2021 of income was filed against the notice. The learned Assessing Officer passed an order u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act & the addition was made amount of Rs.11,85,065/-. During the assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer found that the Assessee deposited cash in his current account amounting to Rs.1,54,51,367/- and in his savings bank account amount to Rs.42,99,722/-. The total cash deposited in two bank accounts was amounting to Rs.1,97,51,089/-. The Assessee was a Commission Agent by profession. Accordingly, the learned Assessing Officer calculated the commission at the rate of 6% on the total credit which is amount to Rs.11,85,065/-. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the learned Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Considering the grounds, the Assessee filed a written submission before the learned CIT(A). Copies of the written submissions along with receipts are enclosed with the appeal petition filed before us. The learned CIT(A) considering the submissions made the following observations which are as follows: “6.2. I have perused the assessment order and the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee. The written submissions of the Assessee have also been perused. In the present case, reopening proceedings were initiated u/s.147 after the Department had in its possession information about cash deposits made by the Assessee in his Bank account. The Assessee had two bank :: 4 :: I.T.A. No.280/Chny/2021 accounts, one current account and one savings account, both in the City Union Bank, Erode. The total credit into the current account was Rs.1,54,51,367/- and in the savings account was Rs.1,42,99,722/- respectively. The Assessee was given several opportunities to explain the sources of cash deposits. The Assessee did not avail these opportunities to explain the same. Hence, the AO was constrained to rely on the transactions appearing in the bank accounts for the Financial Year 2010-2011 relevant to the Assessment Year 2011 – 2012. The Assessee’s case was taken up for scrutiny for that year too. The Assessee had claimed that he was earning commission income from trading in scrap and declared the commission income at 6% of the gross receipts.” 5. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued and pointed out that the Assessee was not appearing before any of the authorities and even not appeared before the Bench after allowing various dates. The learned DR prayed that the matter may be disposed of accordingly. 6. We considered the Assessee’s submissions and the documents that are available in the records. The Assessee un-appeared before the learned Assessing Officer and the source of the cash deposits was not properly explained. The legal ground towards related issuance of Section 148 of the Act is clearly dealt by the learned Assessing Officer. The learned AO took the approval from the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Coimbatore for issuance of the notice u/s.148 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also dealt with the documents filed by the Assessee at the time of adjudicating the :: 5 :: I.T.A. No.280/Chny/2021 appeal petition. The learned Assessing Officer considering the business of the Assessee added back the commission at the rate of 6% on the total credits in the bank accounts. Accordingly, the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer amounting to the tune of Rs.11,85,065/- is sustained. We find no infirmity in the order of the learned Assessing Officer nor of the learned CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I.T.A No.:280/Chny/2021 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 27 th May, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जी मंजूनाथा) (G. MANJUNATHA) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (अिनके श बनज ) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ाियक सद एवं / JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated, the 27 th May, 2022 IA, Sr. PS आदेश की #ितिलिप अ&ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. #(थ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु+ (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु+/CIT 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड0 फाईल/GF