P.Shanthi, CHENNAI V. ITO, Nagapattinam

ITA 475/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5618 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 475/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-2008. MRS. P. SHANTHI, NO.6, MUTHUPETTAI ROAD, TIRUTHURAIPOONDI [PAN AZHPS 7732H ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) NAGAPATTINAM. ( !' / APPELLANT) ( #$!' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. D. ANAND, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. B. SAGADEVAN, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 12-12-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-12-2017 % / O R D E R ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED ON AN ADDITIO N OF >6,88,559/- CONFIRMED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) THROUGH HIS ORDER DATED 09.12.2016. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A PARTNER IN ONE M /S. RAJA AGENCIES HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF >1,92,000/-. IN THE CAP ITAL ACCOUNT FILED ITA NO.475MDS/2017 :- 2 -: ALONGWITH RETURN, THERE WERE CREDITS OF >6,88,559/ - IN CASH. ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH INTR ODUCED. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SHE HAD SOLD A PROPERTY AT P ONNIAH CHETTY STREET, THIRUTHURAIPOONDI FOR A SUM OF >4,16,600/-. FURTHER AS PER THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, SHE HAD SHOWN A SUM OF >1,40,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. APART FROM THIS, AS PER THE ASSES SEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO SHE HAD SHOWN INCOME OF >1,65, 000/- UNDER THE SAME HEAD. THUS, AS PER THE ASSESSEE SHE WAS HAV ING >7,21,600/- WITH HER AND OUT OF SUCH AMOUNT CAPITAL OF >6,88,55 9/- WAS INTRODUCED. HOWEVER, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS. ACCORDING TO HIM, INCOME UNDER TH E HEAD OTHER SOURCES COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SOURCE FOR MONE Y INTRODUCED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, ASS ESSEES EXPLANATION REGARDING SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF PR OPERTY ALONE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED SINCE THERE WAS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALE AMOUNT AND ACTUAL PAYMENT RECEIVED. AN ADDITION OF >6,88,559/- WAS MADE. 3. ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT MEET WITH ANY SUCCESS. ACCORD ING TO THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY ITA NO.475MDS/2017 :- 3 -: EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM FOR THE SOUR CE OF MONEY INTRODUCED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 4. NOW BEFORE ME, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMI TTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCE FOR CASH INTRODUCED IN HER CA PITAL ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS WAS DISBELIEVED FOR NO REASO NS. 5. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ASSESSEE HAS NOT D ISPUTED THAT SHE HAD INTRODUCED >6,88,559/- IN CASH THROUGH HER CAP ITAL ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE CLAIMED >4,16,600/- AS COMING OUT OF SA LE OF A PROPERTY AT PONNIAH CHETTY STREET, THIRUTHURAIPOONDI. FURTHER, AS PER THE ASSESSEE SHE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF >1,40,00 0/- AND >1,65,000/- RESPECTIVELY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 -07 AND 2007- 2008. NONE OF THESE CONTENTIONS WERE FOUND WRONG O R INCORRECT BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEY SIMPLY REFUSED TO ACCE PT THE EXPLANATION ON A REASONING THAT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, FOR AN EARLIER YEAR COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SOURCE FOR CAPITAL INTRO DUCED DURING THE CURRENCY OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. I AM AFRAI D I CANNOT ACCEPT THE ITA NO.475MDS/2017 :- 4 -: VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AN AGGREG ATE AMOUNT >3,05,000/- AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES IN HER RETURNS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-2008. SALE OF TH E PROPERTY WAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCE FOR THE CAPITAL OF >6,88,559/- INTRODUCED BY HER IN HER CAPITAL ACCOU NT. A ADDITION OF >6,88,559/- STANDS DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DE CEMBER, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 19TH DECEMBER, 2017 KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF