PRADEEP DADHA FIRST SON TRUST, CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW 12(3), CHENNAI

ITA 3190/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3288 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R ANITA
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

, /SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALD/SMC BENCH, CHENNAI , , % BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NO. 3190/CHNY/2018S / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 PRADEEP DADHA FIRST SON TRUST, NO. 250, LLOYDS ROAD, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI 600 014. [PAN: AAATP 0023A] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 12(3), BSNL BUILDING, NO. 16, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI 600 034. ( / APPELLANT) ( &'( /RESPONDENT ) () / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. D. ANAND, ADVOCATE &'() / RESPONDENT BY : MS. R. ANITA, JCIT ) /DATE OF HEARING : 05.12.2019 ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2020 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, CHENNAI, I N ITA NO. 104/CIT(A)-13/2010-11 DATED 27.09.2018 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11. :-2-: ITA NO. 3190/CHNY/2018 2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, M/S. PRA DEEP DADHA FIRST SON TRUST, IS A PRIVATE DISCRETIONARY TRUST AND HAS BEEN ASSESSED THE TAX FOR OVER THREE DECADES. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH A ND SEIZURE ACTION CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING IN THE GROUP CA SES OF SHRI. RAJENDRA JAIN, SHRI. SANJAY CHOUDHARY AND SHRI. DHARMICHAND JAIN, MUMBAI ON 03.10.2013, THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION TO THE EFFE CT THAT THESE PERSONS ARE ENTRY PROVIDERS OPERATING IN MUMBAI, WHO HAVE I NDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE NATURE OF BOGUS SALES AND UNSECURED LOANS. AS PER THEIR LIST OF BENEFICIARIES, THE ASSESSEE TR UST M/S. PRADEEP DADHA FIRST SON TRUST WAS ALSO STATED TO BE ONE OF THE BE NEFICIARIES. THEREFORE, THE AO RE-OPENED THE ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED VARIOUS DETAILS O F DOCUMENTS VIZ., BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT, BANK BOOK, JOURNAL LEDGER, JOURNAL REGISTER, COPY OF THE TRUST DEED, INVOICES FOR THE PURCHASE OF POL ISHING OF DIAMOND ARTICLES ISSUED BY SHRI. NAZAR, DIRECTOR OF M/S. NA ZAR IMPEX PVT. LTD., SURAT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF DIAMOND ARTICLES FOR RS. 10,21,800/- AND M/S. DIAL FOREVER TRADING COMPANY FOR POLISHING OF DIAMO ND ARTICLES AT RS. 12,795/- ETC. THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE COMPANIES ALSO. HOWEVER, THE AO ASSESSED RS. 10,21,800/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. AGGRIEVED, T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DISMI SSED THE APPEAL. :-3-: ITA NO. 3190/CHNY/2018 3. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE DIAMOND ARTICLES AND POLISHED IT AND PAID THE IMPUGNED SUM THROUGH BANKING TRANSACTIONS AND THE BANK DETAI LS WERE FURNISHED, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ASSESSED THE TRANSACTION DISREGARDING THE MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE IMPUGNED JEWELRY WERE POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THEY HAVE WRONGLY ASSE SSED THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE HE PLEADED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. IN THIS REGARD, HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPIES OF THE INVOICES ISSUED BY T HE COMPANY WHICH WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. AO, BANK STATEMENT AND ALS O A COPY OF THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OFFI CE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER BUSINESS OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS RANGE -9 AND THE ITO, WARD IX(3) ON 29.07.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY DISCLOSED PRECIOUS STONES WEIG HING 51.09 CTS @ 10,34,595/- AND THE COPIES OF WEALTH TAX RETURNS FI LED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON JULY 2011 AND RETAIL INVOICE ISSUED BY NAZAR IMPEX PVT. LTD. AND THE COPY OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE JEWELRY AND RELIED ON THEM . FURTHER, THE LD. AR HAS BROUGHT THE ORIGINAL JEWELR Y AND SHOWN BEFORE THE BENCH WHICH MATCHED WITH THE DRAWINGS ISSUED BY THE SELLERS. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS CLEA R FROM THE MATERIAL FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAV ING ADEQUATE MONEY :-4-: ITA NO. 3190/CHNY/2018 FOR PURCHASING THE IMPUGNED ARTICLES AND IT WAS PAI D THROUGH BANKING CHANCEL AS REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISCLOS ED THE POSSESSION OF ASSET WITH THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FILED FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. FURTHER, IT BROUGHT AND SHOWN THE SAID JE WELRY BEFORE THE BENCH ALSO. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE AO VERIFIED T HE TRANSACTION WITH THE SELLERS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE OUT A CASE, T HEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HELD AS UNWARRANTED AND IS DELETE D. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED: 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 JPV )&3454 /COPY TO: 1. ( / APPELLANT 2. &'( /RESPONDENT 3. 6 ) ( /CIT(A) 4. 6 /CIT 5. 4& /DR 6. /GF