Shri Ramachandran Lakshmanan, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2834/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6263 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C YAMUNA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !, # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2834/MDS/2016 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI RAMACHANDRAN LAKSHMANAN, C/O SHRI S. SRIDHAR, SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATES, NEW NO.14, OLD NO.82, FLAT NO.5, 1 ST AVENUE, INDIRA NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI - 600 020. PAN : AADPL 9427 H V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 17, CHENNAI - 600 006. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. C. YAMUNA, JCIT 0 . 1# / DATE OF HEARING : 03.07.2017 23( . 1# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.09.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -5, CHENNA I, DATED 31.08.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDIT ION OF ` 69,80,994/- TOWARDS CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. 2 I.T.A. NO.2834/MDS/16 3. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED ` 106 LAKHS IN ICICI BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED EVIDENCE TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEPOSIT OF ` 36,49,064/- FOR CASH DEPOSIT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ` 36,49,064/- WAS FROM SALE OF LAND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 69,80,994/-, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS WAS FROM SALE OF LAND BY ASSESSEES MOTHER. ACCORDING TO TH E LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES MOTHER ON SALE OF LAND W AS ALSO DEPOSITED IN HIS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI SBELIEVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IN FACT, THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEES MOTHER WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT, THE REFORE, AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTAN TIATE THE CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. C. YAMUNA, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHE R HAS ONE 3 I.T.A. NO.2834/MDS/16 MORE ACCOUNT ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE VERY SA ME BANK. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE WAS NO REASON TO DEPOSIT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES MOTHER IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT. IF AT ALL THE ASSESSEES MOTHER RECEIVED ANY SALE CONSIDERATION, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED ONLY I N THE JOINT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES MOTHER. MOREOVER, ACCORD ING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR SALE OF LAND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHT LY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED ` 106 LAKHS IN HIS ACCOUNT HELD WITH ICICI BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E TO THE EXTENT OF ` 36,49,064/-. HOWEVER, REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 69,80,994/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIS MOTHER WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SALE CO NSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES MOTHER WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY PRODUCING NECESSARY COPY OF S ALE DEED. 4 I.T.A. NO.2834/MDS/16 THEREFORE, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION OF ` 69,80,994/- IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PRO DUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. KRI. . ,167 87(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 91 () /CIT(A)-5, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT- 9, CHENNAI 5. 7: ,1 /DR 6. ;' < /GF.