ACIT, Coimbatore V. R.Elangovan, Coimbatore

ITA 314/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9329 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M NARAYANAN RETD
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.314/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I COIMBATORE VS. SHRI R. ELANGOVAN NO.821/2, KALLIPALAYAM CHIKKARAMPALAYAM POST KARAMADAI COIMBATORE 641 104 [PAN AADPE 1 841 Q ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. NARAYANAN, RETD. ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 05 - 04 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 - 05 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-18, CHENN AI, DATED 3.9.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDITION OF ` 86,50,569/- U/S 69A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO.314/16 :- 2 -: 3. SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES O F THE U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 14.12.2012. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND ` 85,63,720/- IN CASH. IN FACT, ` 85 LAKHS WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE DID NOT HAVE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, THERE FORE, HE HAS NO OBJECTION FOR SEIZURE OF CASH OF ` 85 LAKHS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE CASH BAL ANCE AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS ` 86,50,569/- IN ALL THE SEVEN COMPANIES WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMS THAT SHRI K.REVI, ACCOUNTS MANAGER OF THE COMPANY GAVE A BREAK-UP OF CASH BALANCE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 86,50,569/-. THE SAID SHRI K. REVI EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH BALANCE WAS HANDED OVER TO THE PERSONS IN- CHARGE OF THE ABOVE UNITS. THE CIT(A) BY MISCONSTR UING THE STATEMENT OF SHRI REVI FOUND THAT THE MONEY WAS HANDED OVER T O THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION. AC CORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE SAID SHRI REVI NOWHERE IN HIS STATEMENT SAI D THAT THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 86,50,569/- WAS HANDED OVER TO THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. IN FACT, HE STATED THAT THE MON EY WAS HANDED OVER TO THE PERSONS WHO ARE IN-CHARGE OF THE ABOVE UNITS . THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.314/16 :- 3 -: 4. ON THE CONTRAY, SHRI M. NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AVAILABLE CASH BAL ANCE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 86,50,569/- IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE AND H IS WIFE SMT. KAMALAVENI ARE DIRECTORS IN FOUR COMPANIES. THE A SSESSEE WAS ALSO DIRECTOR IN ANOTHER THREE COMPANIES. THE CASH BALA NCE AVAILABLE IN ALL THE SEVEN COMPANIES WAS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 86,50,569/-. THIS IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE ACCOUNTS MANAGER OF T HE COMPANY, SHRI K. REVI WHILE EXPLAINING THE AVAILABLE CASH BA LANCES STATED THAT THE MONEY WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE PERSONS IN-CHARGE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE PERSONS IN-CHARGE IS THE PR ESENT ASSESSEE IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE , THE CIT(A) BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI K. REVI, DELETED THE ADDITION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT MISCONSTRUED ANY STATEMENT MADE BY SHRI K. REVI. SINCE THE AVA ILABLE CASH BALANCE IS NOT IN DISPUTE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY ADDI TION U/S 69A OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMI TTEDLY, THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND CASH OF ` 85,63,720/- WAS FOUND OUT OF WHICH, ` 85 LAKHS WAS SEIZED. AT THE INITIAL STAGE, THE ASSESSEE SAID THAT NO SUPPORTING MATERIAL IS AVAILA BLE AND HE HAS NO OBJECTION FOR SEIZURE OF ` 85 LAKHS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ITA NO.314/16 :- 4 -: PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE IS ` 86,50,569/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION , THE ACCOUNTS MANAGER OF THE COMPANY CLARIFIED THAT THE CASH BALA NCE OF ` 86,50,569/- WAS WITH RESPECTIVE PERSONS WHO ARE IN- CHARGE OF THE UNITS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR IN ALL THE SEVEN COMPANIES. THEREFORE, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE MONEY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION BELONGS TO ALL THE SEVEN COMPANIES. THE REVENUE IS NOT DOUBTING THE AVAILAB ILITY OF CASH BALANCE AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SEVEN COMPAN IES. IN THOSE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE ORDER LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH MAY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 19 TH MAY, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF