A.Alavudeen, CHENNAI V. ITO, Salem

ITA 442/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4820 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR; SRINIRANJANI S

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.442/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-2012. SHRI. A. ALAVUDEEN, NO.154, VENKATESAPURAM EXTENSION, SANKAR NAGAR, SALEM -7. [ PAN AEOPA 4241H] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(4) SALEM -7. ( !' / APPELLANT) ( #$!' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR & MS. SRINIRANJANI, ADVOCATES /RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 19-04-2017 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-04-2017 % / O R D E R ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS APPEAL ASSAILS ADDITIONS OF ?2,78,346/- AND ?5,87,347/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM HIS MOTHER AND FATHER-IN-LAW RESPECTIVELY. 2. ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WITH A DELAY OF THI RTEEN DAYS. CONDONATION PETITION HAS BEEN FILED. REASON SHOWN FOR THE DELAY SEEMS TO BE JUSTIFIED. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. DELAY IS CONDONED. APPEAL IS ADMITTED. ITA NO.442/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: 3. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE EARNING BROKERAGE A ND PHOTOGRAPHY INCOME HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF ?4,90,230/-. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT WHICH EVIDENCED CASH DEPOSITS OF ?60,25,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON V ARIOUS DATES IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS. SOURCES FOR THE DEPOSITS WERE SOUGH T. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ANALYZED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, FOLLOWING BORROWINGS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE BELIEVED. NAME OF THE LOAN CREDITOR RELATIONSHIP WITH ASSESSEE AMOUNT GIVEN DURING THE YEAR MODE OF PAYMENT SMT. A. SHAKIRA BANU WIFE 9,55,515 CASH SHRI. MUMTAZ MOTHER 2,78,346 CASH SHRI. (LATE) SAJI FATHER - IN - LAW 5,87,347 CASH LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID MAKE A ENQUIRY ON EACH OF THE ABOVE THREE CREDITORS. SMT. A. SHAKIRA BANU HAD STATED THAT MON EY WAS GIVEN BY HER FROM DOWRY RECEIVED FROM HER PARENTS AND HER S AVINGS FROM THE TAILORING BUSINESS. SMT. MUMTAZ, MOTHER OF THE AS SESSEE STATED THAT SHE HAD GIVEN THE SUM OUT OF SAVINGS OF HER HUSBAND AND ALSO LIC MATURITIES. HOWEVER, AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, HIS INSPECTOR HAD GIVEN AN ENQUIRY REPORT INTER ALIA STATING THAT SMT . MUMTAZ MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS STAYING WITH HER SON AND THEREFORE HER CLAIM THAT MONEY WAS KEPT BY HER FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE YEARS COULD NOT BE ITA NO.442/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: BELIEVED. FURTHER, AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SM T. A. SHAKIRA BANU WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY RECO RDS REGARDING HER TAILORING BUSINESS. VIZ-A-VIZ CLAIM OF LOAN FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW SHRI. (LATE) SAJI. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT LATE SHRI. SAJI WAS NEVER ASSESSED TO TAX AND HIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS NEVER PROD UCED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE CR EDITS RECEIVED FROM SMT. A. SHAKIRA BANU, SMT. MUMTAZ AND SHRI. (LATE) SAJI AND MADE AN ADDITION OF ?18,21,025/-. 4. ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS PARTLY SUCCESSFUL. LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ACCEPTED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNED THE CLAIM OF LOAN FROM SMT. A. SHAKIRA BANU WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER WITH RESPECT TO OTHER TWO LOANS VIZ THAT FR OM SMT. MUMTAZ AND SHRI. (LATE) SAJI, THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRME D. 5. NOW BEFORE ME, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRON GLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT SMT. MUMTAZ, MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD CONFIRMED THAT SHE HAD GIVEN A LOAN OF ?2,78,346/- TO THE ASS ESSEE AND INSPECTORS REPORT CLEARLY INDICATED SUCH CONFIRMAT ION WHEN SHE WAS ORALLY QUESTIONED. FURTHER AS PER LD. AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE IN SO FAR AS LOAN OF ?5,87,347/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI. (LAT E) SAJI, FATHER IN LAW ITA NO.442/MDS/2017 :- 4 -: OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONCERNED, THE FACTUM OF HAVING RECEIVED THE LOAN STOOD ESTABLISHED. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ASSESSEE HAD PRODU CED CONFIRMATION FROM HIS MOTHER SMT. MUMTAZ AND FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW SHRI. (LATE) SAJI FOR THE ALLEGED LOAN OF ?2,78,346/- AND ?5,87, 347/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THEM. IT HAS NOT BEEN DISP UTED BY THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT. MUMTAZ LIVED W ITH THE ASSESSEE ALL ALONG. REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SMT. MUMTAZ WAS NOT HAVING ANY BANK ACCOUNT FOR HER SELF. REVENUE DOUBTED HER VERSION BASED ON A SURMISE THAT SHE WOU LD NOT HAVE KEPT THE MONEY WITH HER FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TWELVE YEAR S AFTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND IN 1999. IN MY OPINION, THE CONFIRMATI ON FROM SMT. MUMTAZ BEING AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND SHE HAVING CO NFIRMED THE FACTUM OF LOAN OF ?2,78,346/- TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE INSPECTOR SHRI. SANTOSH KUMAR, THE LOAN OUGHT NOT H AVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. HOWEVER, SO FAR AS CLAIM OF LOAN OF ?5,87,347/- FROM FATHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW WHY THE PERSON HAD KEPT THE MONEY IN CASH W ITH HIM, AND WHY IT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO MENTI ONED BY THE ITA NO.442/MDS/2017 :- 5 -: INSPECTOR SHRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR THAT RESIDENTIAL ADD RESS OF THE SON OF LATE SAJI WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. SHRI (L ATE) SAJI HAVING EXPIRED ON 14.10.2013, ASSESSEE WAS DUTY BOUND TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF L OAN FROM LATE SAJI ,WHICH HE FAILED TO DO. NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECO RD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF SHRI. (LATE) SAJI. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT LOWER AUTHO RITIES WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF ?5,87,347/- CLAIMED TO HAV E RECEIVED FROM SHRI. (LATE) SAJI. I DELETE THE ADDITION OF ?2,78,3 46/-, FOR THE LOAN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS MOTHER SMT.MUMTAZ WHILE CONFIRM ADDITION OF ?5,87,347/- BEING THE CLAIM OF LOAN FRO M FATHER-IN-LAW. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF APR IL, 2017, AT CHENNAI. #$% & ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '( / CHENNAI )* / DATED: 21ST APRIL, 2017. KV *+ ,-.- / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. /01 / CIT(A) 5. -23 4 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. / / CIT 6. 356 / GF