ITO, CHENNAI V. G.Kumaresan, CHENNAI

ITA 848/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68778 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SANKARANARAY ANAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 848/MDS/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD IV(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. (APPELLANT) V. SHRI G. KUMARESAN, NO.7, SAYEE NAGAR, 3 RD STREET, JAWAHAR NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 034. PAN : AHQPK 1035 Q (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. GURU BASHYAM, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SH.S.SANKARANARAY ANAN, CA DATE OF HEARING : 30.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.10.2013 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, ITS GRIEVANC E IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, CHENNAI, T HROUGH HIS ORDER DATED 20.12.2012, DELETED AN ADDITION OF ` 26,07,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I.T.A. NO. 848/MDS/13 2 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, A SALARIED EMPL OYEE, HAD FILED HIS RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR O N 30.7.2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` 4,25,350/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS TOTALLING TO ` 26,07,000/- IN HIS ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA, KOLATHUR, CHENNAI. EXPLANATIONS WE RE SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HIS FATHER, A RETIRED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, HAD SOLD A LAN D IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOR A CO NSIDERATION OF ` 25 LAKHS AND THE DEPOSITS MADE WERE OUT OF SUCH AMO UNT. AS PER ASSESSEE, HIS FATHER WAS CONSTRAINED TO MAKE THE DE POSITS IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, SINCE HE WAS NOT HAVING A PAN. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, HIS FATHER BEING A RETIRED RAILWAY EMP LOYEE HAVING A PENSION WHICH NEVER EXCEEDED TAXABLE INCOME, IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE A PAN. IT WAS ONLY FOR THE SAFETY OF THE M ONEY THAT IT WAS DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. 3. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT TH ESE EXPLANATIONS. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT WAS NOT NECESSA RY TO HAVE A PAN FOR MAKING A DEPOSIT IN CASH EXCEEDING ` 50,000/-, IN A BANK ACCOUNT. FURTHER, ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED DETAILS OF THE PROP ERTIES BOUGHT AND I.T.A. NO. 848/MDS/13 3 SOLD BY HIS FATHER, AND HOW THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIV ED. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEES FATHER B EING A RETIRED PERSON, COULD HAVE DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT BY HIMSELF AND NOT IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. HE, TH EREFORE, REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AN D MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 26,07,000/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A PPEALS). ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, HIS FATHER WAS A RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE OF SOUTHERN RAILWAY. IN T HE YEAR 2005, HIS FATHER ACQUIRED A PROPERTY FOR ` 6,20,000/-. THIS PROPERTY WAS PROPOSED TO BE SOLD TO ONE MRS. S. SANGEETHA. ON 6 .4.2008. A SUM OF ` 7,60,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM MRS. SANGEETHA AS ADV ANCE. SINCE HIS FATHERS BANKERS WERE NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT DEP OSITS IN CASH EXCEEDING ` 50,000/-, ASSESSEE WAS FORCED TO HELP HIM OUT. OU T OF CASH OF ` 7,60,000/- RECEIVED FROM MRS. SANGEETHA, SUM OF ` 7,55,000/- WAS DEPOSITED INTO ASSESSEES BANK ACCOU NT ON 29.5.2008. AS PER ASSESSEE, MRS. SANGEETHA HAD EFF ECTED FURTHER PAYMENTS OF ` 10 LAKHS ON 8.1.2009, ` 5 LAKHS ON 28.1.2009 AND ` 2,40,000/- ON 2.2.2009, AGGREGATING ` 17,40,000/-. AS REQUIRED BY HIS FATHER, ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED SUCH AMOUNTS IN ASSE SSEES BANK I.T.A. NO. 848/MDS/13 4 ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, A SUM OF ` 17,52,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 7.2.2009. IN A NUTSHELL, AS PER AS SESSEE, ALL THE DEPOSITS MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WERE COMING OUT O F THE SALE OF HIS FATHERS PROPERTY. ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT HIS FATHER HAD PAID A SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS AS ADVANCE 17.2.2009 FOR ACQUIRING A PROP ERTY FROM ONE S. KAVITHA. ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A CAP ITAL GAINS COMPUTATION STATEMENT OF SHRI M. GOVINDHARAJ, HIS F ATHER, TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO TAX LIABILITY IN LATTERS HAND. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPIES OF PURCHASE DEED AND SALE DEED OF THE PROPER TY AS ALSO BANK ACCOUNT COPIES IN EVIDENCE. CIT(APPEALS) REQUIRED THE PRESENCE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS PER CIT(APPEALS), ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHRI NALLATHAMBI, ITO OF SALARY WARD VI(4) WAS PRESENT W HEN THE HEARINGS WERE HELD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N. 5. NOW BEFORE US, SHRI GURU BASHYAM, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF ASSESSEES VERSION WAS ACCEPTED AS CORRECT, STILL THE SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS PAID BY HIS FATHER ON 17.2.2009 FOR PURCHASING A PROPERTY FROM MRS. KAVITHA, WAS NOT EX PLAINED. AS PER LEARNED D.R., THE TOTAL SUMS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EES FATHER ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY TO MRS. SANGEETHA, CAME TO ` 25 LAKHS, WHEREAS, I.T.A. NO. 848/MDS/13 5 TOTAL DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACC OUNT CAME TO ` 26,07,000/-. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WA S ATLEAST A SUM OF ` 1.07 LAKHS STILL TO BE EXPLAINED. FURTHER, AS PER LEARNED D.R., THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE OF TIME BETWEEN THE DATES IN WHICH ASSESSEES FATHER HAD RECEIVED THE MONEY AND THE DE POSITS WERE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HAD THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS ACCO UNT ONLY FOR SAFE- KEEPING BEEN CORRECT, THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUC H A DISTANCE OF TIME. 6. PER CONTRA, CA S. SANKARANARAYANAN, APPEARING FO R THE ASSESSEE, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THAT ASSESSEES FATHER HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 7,60,000/- ON 6.4.2008, ` 10 LAKHS ON 8.1.2009, ` 5 LAKHS ON 28.1.2009 AND ` 2,40,000/- ON 2.2.2009 FOR SALE OF HIS PROPERTY TO MRS. SANGEETHA, HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS CLEARLY MEN TIONED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT COPIES OF PURCHASE DEED AND SALE DEED, INCLUDING BANK ACCOUNT COPIES, WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO PRESENT DURING THE COURS E OF HEARING AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH ASSESSING OFFICER AS WE LL. NO DOUBT, THE I.T.A. NO. 848/MDS/13 6 SUM OF ` 7,60,000/- RECEIVED ON 6.4.2008, WAS DEPOSITED ONL Y ON 19.5.2008, WHEREAS, BALANCE SUMS WERE DEPOSITED ONL Y ON 7.2.2009. THERE WAS A TIME GAP RANGING FROM 5 DAYS TO 43 DAYS . IN OUR OPINION, THESE WERE NOT SO SIGNIFICANT A PERIOD OF TIME, TO DISBELIEVE THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE TH AT FOR DEPOSITS IN CASH EXCEEDING ` 50,000/-, BANKERS INSIST ON PAN. HENCE THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS FATHER WHO WAS HAV ING NO PAN HAD TO RELY ON HIM FOR DEPOSITING THE MONEY CANNOT BE D ISBELIEVED. EFFECTIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF PROPERTY BY HIS FATHER AND THE DEPOSITS MADE, IS ONLY ` 1,07,000/-. THIS COULD HAVE GONE FROM ASSESSEES OWN SAVING SINCE THE INCO ME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ITSELF CA ME TO ` 4,25,350/-. AS TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED D. R. THAT SOURCE FOR THE SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS PAID BY ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI GOVINDHARA J AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASING ANOTHER PROPERTY ON 17.2.200 9 STOOD UNEXPLAINED, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS SOM ETHING WHICH WAS FOR SHRI M. GOVINDHARAJ TO EXPLAIN AND NOT THE ASSE SSEE. IN ANY CASE, IN OUR OPINION, ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN REASONABLE EXPLA NATION FOR THE DEPOSITS OF MONEY IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION . NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED. I.T.A. NO. 848/MDS/13 7 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 4 TH OF OCTOBER, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V.DURGA RAO) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 4 TH OCTOBER, 2013. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-VI, CHENNAI (4) CIT-V, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE