Vivek chandrasekar, Chennai V. Ito non corp ward 17(4) , Chennai

ITA 282/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around the scrutiny of cash deposits made by Vivek Chandrasekar, an employee of IBM Pvt. Ltd., during the demonetization period in India. The Income Tax Department questioned these deposits, suspecting them to be unexplained investments. The assessee argued that these deposits were from the sale proceeds of his residential property and were used for legitimate expenses including wedding preparations and medical treatments. The Assessing Officer initially treated a significant portion of these deposits as unexplained, a decision upheld by the CIT(A). However, upon appeal to the Tribunal, it was determined that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of the deposits, leading to the deletion of the addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135389 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 69A; 22

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी दुगाŊ राव Ɋाियक सद˟ के समƗ Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.282/Chny/2023 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vivek Chandrasekar, No. 1, Flat 3B, Apsaras, Sambandam St., G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [PAN:AAQPC0458H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 17(4), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 08.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi dated 09.02.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of IBM Pvt. Ltd., Chennai and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 12.06.2017 admitting total income of ₹.4,92,990/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to examine cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during demonetization period and issued I.T.A. No. 282/Chny/23 2 statutory notices. From the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has deposited ₹.49,000/- on 12.11.2016 and ₹.14,00,000/- on 13.11.2016 and called for explanation from the assessee. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 17.12.2019 assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.16,91,990/- by disallowing ₹.11,99,000/- as unexplained investment/ money under section 69/69A of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the cash deposits made during demonetization period were the amounts withdrawn from assessee’s HDFC bank account out of sale consideration of residential property for the purpose of wedding preparation of assessee, his younger sister and towards domestic and medical treatment expenses of the family. It was further submission that the assessee was employed in IBM Pvt. Ltd. and since the marriages could not materialized, after meeting medical and domestic expenditure, the remaining cash totalling to ₹.20.47 lakhs was re-deposited in the bank accounts. The assessee has no other source of income to make any I.T.A. No. 282/Chny/23 3 deposits other than the balance amount from the sale proceeds and prayed for deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. 5. Heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The case of the assessee is that he has sold his residential property at 22 Nallanna Mudali Steet, Royapetta, Chennai for a total consideration of ₹.35 lakhs as per registered sale deed dated 15.07.2015. The entire amount has been received by way of account payee cheques and deposited in his HDFC bank account. Over a period of 17 months from 15.07.2015 to 12.11.2016, a total sum of ₹.30.50 has been withdrawn by the assessee through bearer cheques drawn in favour of his father Mr. V. Chandrasekar and mother Mrs. C. Vaidehi and also by way of self cheques. It was submitted that the sums were withdrawn for weeding preparation of assessee, his younger sister and towards domestic expenses and medical treatment expenses of parents and family. After meeting medical and domestic expenses, the remaining cash totalling to ₹.20.47 lakhs was redeposited in Banks during November, 2016 after the I.T.A. No. 282/Chny/23 4 announcement of demonetization. After giving due consideration to savings, the Assessing Officer has allowed ₹.2,50,000/- and the remaining amount of ₹.11,99,000/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 6. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee has no other source of income other than the salary and the sale proceeds out of sale of residential property deposited in the bank account. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that for genuine purpose of making arrangement for marriage of the assessee as well as his younger sister and to meet medical and domestic expenses, the sale proceeds deposited in the bank account was withdrawn and since the marriage proposals did not materialise and balance cash after meeting medical and domestic expenses was deposited in his bank accounts. In this case, the Department did not bring on record any other source of income of the assessee and moreover, the sale consideration received out of sale of residential property was not disputed by the Department. Under the above facts and circumstances, it is opined that the transaction made by the assessee are genuine and the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, the addition made under section 69A of the Act is deleted and allowed the I.T.A. No. 282/Chny/23 5 ground raised by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 12 th June, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 12.06.2023 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.