K.Gopi, Ernakulam V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 634/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4778 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: N QUADIR HOSEYN
• Keywords: Gift; Agreed addition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B, CHENNAI B E F O R E DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.634(MDS)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI K.GOPI, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 31/556-B, PAZHANILLATH HOUSE, VS. SALARY W ARD IV(3), KACHAPILLI ROAD, PONNURANI, CHENNAI. VYTILLA, ERNAKULAM-682 019. PAN AHOPG9049G. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.QUADIR HOSEYN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.B.SEKARAN, CIT, DR. O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-VI AT CHENNAI D ATED 29-3- ITA NO.634(MDS)/2010 2 2010, WHICH AROSE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF ` 39,415/- TO THE INCOME AS ESTIMATED PROPERTY INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE CURRENT RENT, WHEN IN FACT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY PROPERTY INCOME EARLIER. 3. WE CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE. WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE COPY OF THE ORDER-SHEET OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ADDITION OF ` 39,615/- WAS IN FACT AN AGREED ADDITION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ENTERTAIN ANY MORE CONTROVERSY ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 4. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SU STAINING THE ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK TO THE TU NE OF ` 5,90,500/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE GIFT WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, AN AMOUNT OF ` 5,50,000/- WAS GIFTED BY HIS AUNT TO HIS WIFE AND THE BALANCE ITA NO.634(MDS)/2010 3 OF ` 40,500/- WAS MET FROM HIS OWN SAVINGS, WHICH I N TOTAL AMOUNTED TO ` 5,90,500/-. IN SUPPORT OF THE GIFT M ADE FROM WIFES AUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATION LE TTER FROM THE AUNT EXPLAINING THAT THE NECESSARY AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN BY HER AUNT FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT IN BHUV ANAGIRI IN TAMIL NADU AND THEREAFTER PAID TO THE ASSESSEES WIFE IN CASH. BUT IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT SHE COULD NOT PROD UCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE BANK TRANSAC TION ON THE GROUND THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED AND THE BANK PASS-BOOK WAS MISPLACED WHEN HER RESIDENCE WAS SHIF TED FROM BHUVANAGIRI TO COCHIN. 5. ANOTHER POSSIBLE VIEW IN THE PRESENT CASE IS TH AT THE CASE COULD HAVE BEEN FURTHER VERIFIED WITH THE AUNT OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE AND IF THE IDENTITY IS ESTABLIS HED, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED IN HER HANDS. THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AG AINST THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE RATHER IN HASTE. WHEN THE FAM ILY CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS TAKING CARE OF HIS WIFES AUNT AND PROVIDING OTHER ASSISTA NCE AND CARE, IT IS NOT ALTOGETHER UNBELIEVABLE THAT THE AU NT WOULD ITA NO.634(MDS)/2010 4 NOT HAVE MADE ANY SUCH GIFT TO ASSESSEE WIFE. AFT ER ALL, IN PRACTICAL LIFE IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE BL ACK AND WHITE EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF NOMINAL TRANSACTIONS. THUS, GIVING THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO THE ASSESSEE, WE HOL D THAT THE ADDITION OF ` 5,90,500/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT IS DELETED. 6. IN RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 29 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 29 TH JUNE, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.