V.Amarnath, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 538/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8905 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V SUBBARAYAN
• Keywords: Gift; Salary income
• Section: 6; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' # . $ , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICI AL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.538/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) MR. V.AMARNATH, S/O. R.VISWANATHAN, 18, NEW GIRI ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-I CHENNAI-34. PAN:AESPA5807M ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.V.SUBBARAYAN, A.R /RESPONDENT BY : MR. SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 1 ST AUGUST,2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 ND AUGUST, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 2, CHENNAI DATED 04.11.2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C R.W.S 254 & 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS AS FOLLOWS:- I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.02.2014 IS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2 ITA NO.538/MDS/2016 II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF `2,01,400/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF FOR THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN BUSINESS. A SEARCH UNDER SEC TION 132 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF MR. VISWANATHAN AND OTHER RELATED PARTIES ON 23.08.2006 AT NATHAM, DINDIGUL A ND CHENNAI. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 UNDER SECTION 153C R.W.S.153A OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, I N THE SECOND APPELLATE STAGE THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS OR DER DATED 28.02.2012 IN ITA NO.194/MDS/2011 REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR `2 ,01,400/. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER THAT HE WAS EARNING SALARY INCOME OF RS. `4 9,600/- AND `49,000/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AND 2003-04. HE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT OUT OF HIS SAVINGS FROM S ALARY, POCKET MONEY AND GIFTS RECEIVED FROM RELATIVES, HE MADE THE 3 ITA NO.538/MDS/2016 INVESTMENT OF `2,01,400/-. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE AND ADDED THE SAME TO HIS INCOME. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER BY AGREEING WITH HIS VIEW. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION O F `2,01,400/-, IS MADE FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE REGARDING SOURCE OF I NCOME. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE SALARY INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISPUTED BY TH E 4 ITA NO.538/MDS/2016 REVENUE. MOREOVER, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR ANY INDIVI DUAL COMING FROM MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY TO POSSESS AN AMOUN T OF `2,00,000/- FROM HIS PERSONAL SAVINGS, SOURCE OF WH ICH MAY BE FROM HIS FAMILY RESOURCES. CONSIDERING THESE ASP ECTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT MERE ADDITION OF `2 ,01,400/- IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS NOT WARRANTED. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF `2,01,4 00/-. 7. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS, THE I SSUE WITH RESPECT TO JURISDICTION HAS BECOME ACADEMIC AN D THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICAT E THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 2 ND AUGUST, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ' # . $ ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 2 ND AUGUST, 2016 SOMU 5 ITA NO.538/MDS/2016 *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF