K.V.Mathew, Ernakulam V. ITO, Ernakulam

ITA 48/COCH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58211 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: P BALADRISHNAN
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND B.R.BASKAR AN, AM I.T.A. NO. 48/COCH/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 K.V.MATHEW, PROP. PHOENIX ENTERPRISES, 40/8084, MULLASSERY CANAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. [PAN:AEBPM 4915K] VS. I.T.O., WARD-2(3), RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM. . (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI P.BALADRISHNAN, ADV. REVENUE BY MS. S.VIJAYAPRABHA, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING 05/01/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 6/01/2012 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30-11-2009 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-II, KOCHI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE FOLLOWING AD DITIONS CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A). (A) 1/4 TH OF CAR EXPENSES TOWARDS PERSONAL USE - RS.3, 160/- (B) 1/4 TH OF DEPRECIATION OF CAR TOWARDS PERSONAL USE - RS .11,519/- (C) UNEXPLAINED MONEY IN BANK A/C - RS.22.51 L AKHS 3 THE FACTS RELATING TO THESE ISSUES ARE STATED IN BRIEF. IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN EXCESS OF RS.10.00 LAKHS IN AN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH CITI BANK. ON ENQUIRY, IT WAS NOTI CED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IN HIS INCOME TAX RECORD. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS CASH I.T.A. NO. 48/COCH/2010 2 DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.22.51 LAKHS. SINCE THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT UP TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, HE ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69A OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED A PORTION OF CAR EXPENSES AND CAR DEPRECIATION TOWARD S PERSONAL USE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUCCEED IN HIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE LD CIT(A). HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE TOWARDS PERSONAL USE OF CAR, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THE SAME CONTENTIONS THAT WERE RAISED BEF ORE LD CIT(A). IN OUR VIEW, THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE TOWARDS PERSONAL USE OF CAR AP PEARS TO BE REASONABLE AND ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON TH IS ISSUE. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE AVAILABILITY OF SOURCES F OR MAKING DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH CITI BANK, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAIN ED THAT THE SAID FUNDS WERE OBTAINED FROM HER SISTER, WHO IS RESIDING IN ROME IN ITALY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID FUNDS WERE INITIALLY RECEIVED BY THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD EARLIER TAKEN MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE RETURNED THE FUNDS OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THEIR SISTER. WITH REG ARD TO THE OCCASION FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HIS S ISTER HAD AGREED TO SPONSOR THE MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEES DAUG HTER, WHO IS PURSUING THE COURSE IN CZECK REPUBLIC. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, TH E LD A.R DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS WITH DRAWN MONEY ON TWO OCCASION IN CONNECTION WITH EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF HIS DAUGHTE R. 6. HOWEVER, BOTH THE TAX AUTHORITIES WERE NOT C ONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LE TTERS FROM HIS BROTHER AND SISTER IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. BEFORE US, THE LD A.R REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS THAT WERE ADVANCED BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES. ON THE C ONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS ARE SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO I.T.A. NO. 48/COCH/2010 3 MAKE PROPER RECONCILIATION OF THE RECEIPTS VIS--VI S THE AMOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSACTED BETWEEN THE BROTHER AND SISTER OF THE AS SESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CARE FULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. FROM THE CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE, WHICH IS PLACED IN ANNEXURE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DEPOSITS IN ROUND SUMS ON VARIOUS DATES RANGING FRO M RS.5,000/- TO RS.90,000/-. THOUGH THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION L ETTER BY STATING THAT SHE HAS AGREED TO SPONSOR THE EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER, SHE HAS NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT ACTUALLY REMITTED BY HER IN THIS REGARD, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH THE SAID LETTER LOSES ITS CREDIBILITY. THE REASON GIVEN FOR ROUTIN G THE SAID PAYMENT THROUGH ANOTHER BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT CONVINCING. TH E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS BROTHER HAD TAKEN MONEY FROM HIM ON EARLIER OCCASIO NS IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY EVIDENCE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW ALSO , THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT CONVINCING. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 6.1 .12 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 6TH JANUARY, 2012 GJ COPY TO: 1. K.V.MATHEW, PROP. PHOENIX ENTERPRISES, 40/8084, MULLASSERY CANAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM.. 2. THE INCOME TAX, WARD-2(3), RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, KOC HI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE .