Mona Bengani, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2810/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2042 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABIJIT RAKSHIT
• Assessee Lawyers: T N SEETHARAMAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI , ! . , ! ' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2810/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT.MONA BENGANI, C/O.T.N.SEETHARAMAN, ADV., #384 (OLD NO.196), LLOYDS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 086. [PAN: AHQPB 6693 P] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-5(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 121, M.G.ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 034. ( ) /APPELLANT) ( *+) /RESPONDENT) ) , / APPELLANT BY : MR. T.N.SEETHARAMAN, ADV. *+) , /RESPONDENT BY : MR. ABIJIT RAKSHIT, JCIT , /DATE OF HEARING : 18.06.2019 , /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.06.2019 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.168/CIT(A)- 5/2017-18 DATED 10.07.2018 FOR THE AY 2010-11. 2. SHRI ABIJIT RAKSHIT, JCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI T.N.SEETHARAMAN, ADV., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE ONLY ISSU E IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN N OT ACCEPTING THE ITA NO.2810/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES SON ON HIS BIRTH. IT WAS A SUBMISSION T HAT ALL THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD.CIT(A) AND W ITHOUT MAKING ANY EXAMINATION OF THE SAME, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE. THE LD.AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NOS.8 & 9 OF THE PAPER B OOK, WHICH IS A COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO, WHI CH CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES SON ON HIS BIRTH ALONG WITH THE NAMES AND PAN OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE GIVEN THE GIF TS (WHO ARE MAINLY FATHER-IN-LAW, MOTHER-IN-LAW, UNCLE, MATERNAL UNCLE , GRANDFATHER, GRANDMOTHER AND PARENTS OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN AND HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS). 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE AO AND THE LD.CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 6. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED WEALTH TAX RETURNS, WHEREIN, SHE HAS ADMITTED THAT HAVING RECE IVED CERTAIN GIFTS OF GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMONDS ON THE BIRTH OF HER SON MASTER JAINAM BENGANI ON 30.09.2009. IT IS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FILED FOR THE AY 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE WEALTH TO AN EXTENT OF RS.9,29,844/- WHEREAS FOR TH E AY 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE WEALTH OF NEARLY RS.20,8 7,834/-, THE DIFFERENCE ITA NO.2810/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: BEING THE CLAIM OF GIFT RECEIVED ON THE BIRTH OF TH E ASSESSEES SON. THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.11,57,986/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A ) SHOWS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON TH E GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLIS H THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ADDITION TO THE WEALTH BEING GIFTS RECEIVED ON THE BIRTH OF THE ASSESSEES SON. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE PAPE R BOOK MORE SPECIFICALLY PAGE NOS.8 & 9 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ON 1 1.12.2017, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A LETTER SPECIFYING THE DETAILS OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED ALONG WITH THE PAN OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE GIVEN TH E GIFTS. A PERUSAL OF THE PAGE NOS.10-14 OF THE PAPER BOOK ALSO SHOWS THA T ANOTHER LETTER HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON 27.12.2017, WHEREIN, THE DETAILS HA VE BEEN BROUGHT OUT AGAIN. NONE OF THESE EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN DISCARDED OR FOUND TO BE FALSE. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE INCREASE IN THE WEALTH AND NO ADDITION ON THIS GROU ND IS CALLED FOR. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AN D CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.11,57,986/- UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT STANDS DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 18 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019, IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( S. JAYARAMAN ) ! /ACCOUN TANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2810/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: /CHENNAI, 3 /DATED: 18 TH JUNE, 2019. TLN , *45 65 /COPY TO: 1. ) /APPELLANT 4. 7 /CIT 2. *+) /RESPONDENT 5. 5 * /DR 3. 7 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF