SMT. BASKAR GAJALAKSHMI PRABHA, MADURAI V. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE, MADURAI

ITA 773/CHNY/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4479 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ ᭠यायपीठ,चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी महावीर ᳲसह, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.: 773/CHNY/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Baskar Gajalakshmi Prabha, 3/287/2, Surveyar Colony, K.Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. PAN: BNRPG 0473L vs. The ACIT, International Taxation Circle, Madurai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.12.2023 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai in ITA No.158/CIT(A)-16/2019-20 dated 28.07.2022. The assessment order was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle, Madurai, for the assessment year 2 ITA No. 773/Chny/2022 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 12.12.2019. 2. The only issue in this appeal is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming action of the AO in making addition to the extent of Rs.24,92,060/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. For this assessee has raised various grounds which are argumentative, exhaustive and hence, need not be reproduced. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a non-resident individual and filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 04.11.2017. The AO noted that the assessee has made cash deposit in Indian Bank A/c No.408480700 and required her to explain the source of deposit. The assessee has made deposit from 31.05.2016 to 30.03.2017 in aggregate to Rs.51,59,500/-. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee out of above cash deposit of Rs.51,59,500/- could not explain the cash deposit amounting to Rs.30,25,560/- and hence, added the same to the total income of the assessee as ‘unexplained money’ u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3 ITA No. 773/Chny/2022 4. The CIT(A) further allowed and treated the money as explained to the extent of Rs.5,34,500/- and balance, he confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.24,92,060/- by observing in para 5.3 as under:- 5.3 I have considered the matter. The assessee deposited Rs.5,10,000/- in cash on 31.05.2016. Assessee claimed to have opening cash balance of Rs.5,52,652 as on 31.03.2016. There was no cash withdrawal during the year before the date deposit. The opening cash balance shown by assessee does not have any authentic proof. If there was opening cash at all, it is also not understood as to why assessee should deposit nearly all her cash holding in bank account on a particular date. Therefore, the source of cash deposited cannot be taken as explained. Regarding the sum of Rs.36,25,000/- deposited on 02.06.2016, the AO had accepted the source to the extent of Rs.16,89,000/- because on the date of deposit, assessee's mother had received Rs.16,89,000/- on account of sale of property. During the course of the year, assessee had shown cash withdrawal of only Rs. 1,25,000/- before 02.06.2016. Therefore, the source of cash (Rs.36,25,000- 16,89,000) or Rs. 19,36,000/- is not at all explained. There was another deposit of Rs.4,90,000/- on 14.07.2016. Even that deposit is not matched by corresponding cash withdrawals prior to that date during the course of the year. Hence, the deposit of Rs.4,90,000/- also cannot be treated as explained. Assessee claimed that interest received on FD formed part of source of cash deposited. This explanation is not acceptable in absence of withdrawals of cash from bank. Assessee also claimed to have received interest of Rs.4,95,780/- from outsiders. This contention is also without any proof in the form .of confirmation from the so called 'outsiders'. Regarding residual cash deposit of Rs.5,34,500/-, it is seen that deposits were preceded by 4 ITA No. 773/Chny/2022 sufficient cash withdrawals. The AO had already given benefit on account of assessee's sale of land, rent received as well as agriculture income. Therefore, I am of the view that deposit to the extent of Rs.5,34,500/- can be treated as being sourced from withdrawals. Hence, assessee gets relief of Rs.5,34,500/-. Addition of Rs.24,92,060/- (Rs.30,26,560-5,34,500) is confirmed. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before Tribunal. 5. The ld.counsel for the assessee before us submitted that the assessee has submitted cash book vide submissions dated 14.07.2022 and in the said cash book, there were entries showing the receipts and loans by assessee from various parties for purchase of two pieces of land from one Mrs. Saraswathy Ammal on 23.05.2016. The ld. Counsel explained that the amounts received in cash are recorded in assessee’s cash book and since the assessee had to make payment in three parts, cash was deposited into her bank account. Thereafter the amounts were repaid to the creditors through cheques. The assessee explained by filing details before us that total loans taken is amounting to Rs.19,58,200/-, which is as under: # Creditor Loan availed Availed on Repaid on Ledger @ 1 Moorthy 50,000 07.04.2016 25.07.2016 30.01.2017 35 2 Vishnupandi 1,00,000 09.04.2016 08.02.2017 40 5 ITA No. 773/Chny/2022 3 Srinivasan 12,000 11.04.2016 25.10.2016 37 4 Gokulrani 1,00,000 21.04.2016 03.02.2027 29 5 Saravanakumar 1,00,000 21.04.2016 13.02.2017 36 6 Tharanya 98,000 29.04.2016 01.03.2017 38 7 Srinivasan 19,000 30.04.2016 25.10.2016 37 8 Umadevi 1,00,000 01.05.2016 22.02.2017 39 9 Kesavan 2,96,000 01.05.2016 22.02.2017 01.03.2017 16.03.2017 33 10 Gunasekaran 1,30,700 01.05.2016 22.02.2017 31 11 Krishnakumar 2,50,500 02.05.2016 06.10.2016 31.01.2017 34 12 Gopal 1,50,000 02.05.2016 22.02.2017 30 13 Baskar 5,52,000 02.05.2016 31.03.2017 26 Total 19,58,200 He also explained that assessee has opening cash balance of Rs.5,48,550/- available in the books of accounts as on 01.04.2016 and the same was also used for depositing in bank and thereby tried to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.24,92,060/-. 6. On the other hand, the ld.Senior DR relied on the assessment order and that of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) sustained the following cash deposits:- 6 ITA No. 773/Chny/2022 S.No. Date of Deposit Cash Deposits Addition by AO Sustained by CIT(A) 1. 31.05.2016 5,10,000 5,10,000 5,10,000 2. 02.06.2016 36,25,000 14,92,060 14,92,060 3. 14.07.2016 4,90,000 4,90,000 4,90,000 The total amount of cash deposits sustained by CIT(A) is at Rs.24,92,060/-. Now, the assessee want to explain the same by the above mentioned cash loan availed amounting to Rs.19,58,200/- and further opening cash balance as per cash book as on 01.04.2016 at Rs.5,48,550/-. We noted that the assessee has filed paper-book in which cash book extracts including ledger extracts for financial year 2016-17 is submitted and claimed that these were submitted before lower authorities. When it was pointed out to ld.counsel that these details were never discussed by either CIT(A) nor AO or any evidence can be filed for where he has filed these details, he could not. Even the certificate given in paper-book is not as per the Tribunal rules that which paper is before which authority and particularly, the assessee tried to explain the source that cash loans were taken from various persons as noted above in para 5. We noted that simple bald statement is made by assessee regarding loan taken just to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account, which is sustained by the CIT(A). Since, the assessee is unable 7 ITA No. 773/Chny/2022 to substantiate any of the cash loans taken from these persons and the ledger opening cash balance, we have no alternative except to confirm the addition. Hence, the CIT(A) order is sustained and appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29 th December, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मंजुनाथ. जी) (MANJUNATHA.G) लेखा सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 29 th December, 2023 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.