Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2198 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
10 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-08-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
16-10-2018
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI , , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 2916/CHNY/2018 ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009. S. SATHIYAMOORTHY, S/O. LATE G. SHANMUGAM, PLOT NO.11, BALAJI NAGAR, 89, VEPPAMPATTU, CHENNAI 602 024. [PAN AUKPS 8372D] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD 1(4) CHENNAI 600 034. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) # $ % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. L. RAVICHANDRAN, ADV. &' # $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. M.S NETHRAPAL, JCIT. ( ) $ * /DATE OF HEARING : 19-08-2019 +,'! $ * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-08-2019 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-12, CHENNAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 31.08.2018 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-2009. ITA NO. 2916/2018 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE CT (A)-12 DATED 31-08-2018 U/ S 250(6) ALLOWING THE APPEAL PARTIALLY INSTEAD OF FUL L IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-12 IGNORES TO CONSIDER IMPOSSIBILITY OF PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF A SALARI ED ASSESSEE WHO ALWAYS NOT KEEP HIS RECORDS AS EVIDENC E. 3. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-12 OUGHT TO CONSIDER THE INORDINATE DELAY AND LATCHES IN DISPOSAL OF THE APP EAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH CAUSED MENTAL AGONY TO THE ASSESS EE. 4. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-12 MECHANICALLY APPRECIA TED THE EVIDENCE AS THAT OF ORGANIZED CORPORATE BODIES. 5. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1 2 WAS ARBITRARY AND AG AINST THE PROVISION OF LAW. 6. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-12 BY PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL WAS AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ITS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE HONBLE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY PLEASE TO ORDER F OR FULL WAIVER OF TAX BY SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)1 2 DATED 31-08-2018 AND THUS RENDER JUSTICE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME UNDE R THE HEAD SALARY. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 WAS FILED ON 25.07.2008 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF H85,980/-. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY T HE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD I(4), CHENNAI (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED AS ASSESSING ITA NO. 2916/2018 :- 3 -: OFFICER) VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2010 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) AT TOTA L INCOME OF H10,65,980/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCO UNT OF H9,80,000/. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITION, AN APPEAL WA S PREFERRED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDE R GRANTED RELIEF BY RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO H4,58,500/- AS AGAINST ADDITION OF H9,80,000/- CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE OF THE LOAN F ROM MOTHER AND CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN CREDITORS ETC., 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THAT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) GIVING PARTIAL RELIEF, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED MONEY FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS IN ORDER TO MEET THE COST OF PURCHASE OF LAND. SL.NO NAME AMOUNT 1 R. SURESH 19,500 2 T. ISREAL 15,000 3 P. CHANDRA BABU 18,000 4 L. DEENADAYALAN 17,500 5 V. DEVAKUMAR 19,000 6 P. SIVAKUMAR 18,500 7 S.DHAKSHNAMOORTHY 19,000 8 S JAYASUDHA 17,000 9 D. RAVIKUMAR 19,000 10 R . RAMANI 19,500 ITA NO. 2916/2018 :- 4 -: 11 K. DURAIRAJ C/O. 17,500 1,99,500 12 S. SEVLAKUMAR C/O. 1,99,500 16,000 13 K.SHANMUGASUNDAR 18,500 14 V. PRAVEEN 18,500 15 M. PALANISAMY 18,500 16 D. SENTHIL 17,000 17 D. MUNISWAMY (LIC AGENT) 17,000 18 B. SUMATHI 18,000 GRAND TOTAL 3,23,000 SINCE THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND WAS NOT M ATERIALIZED, LOANS WERE REPAID AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT NOT TO HAVE REJECTED THE EXPLANATION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. IN SUPPORT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN BA NK ACCOUNT, ASSESSEE OFFERED AN EXPLANATION. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SIMPLY REJECTED THE EXPLANATION WITHOUT GIVING ANY COGENT REASON. T HE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AND THERE IS NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE EXPLANATION AND THE CASH LOANS AR E TOO MEAGER TO ITA NO. 2916/2018 :- 5 -: DOUBT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. ACC ORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019, AT C HENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER -) / CHENNAI . / DATED: 28TH AUGUST, 2019. KV /0 $0& *12032'* / COPY TO: 0 1 . # / APPELLANT 3. 0 ( 4*056 / CIT(A) 5. 278 0& * 9 / DR 2. &' # / RESPONDENT 4. 0 ( 4* / CIT 6. 8:0;) / GF
Mehul