B.T.Sundari, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 851/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8757 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K MEENAKSHISUNDARAM ITP
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.851/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) SMT. B.T.SUNDARI, 1/1, APPIER LANE, ROYAPURAM, CHENNAI-600 013. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-XII(2), CHENNAI-34. PAN:AQQPS5137C ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. K.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, ITP /RESPONDENT BY : MR. SAHADEVAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 7 TH JUNE, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 5, CHENNAI DATED 09.02.2016 IN ITA NO.212/CIT(A)-5/ 2013- 14 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HER APPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOL LOWS:- I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,65,145/- BY HOLDING THAT THE SUNDRY DEBTORS ARE NOT GENUINE. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF 2 ITA NO.851/MDS/2016 RS.1,90,000/- BY HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT REALIZED BY SALE OF JEWELLERY IS NOT GENUINE AND THEREBY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON 31.08.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,48,550/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.12.2009 WHEREIN AMONG CERTA IN ADDITIONS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,65,145/- BY HOLDING THAT SUNDRY DEBTORS AND AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SALE OF JEWELLERY OF RS.1,90,000 /- AGGREGATING TO RS.4,55,145/- ARE NOT GENUINE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.4,80,000/- IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACC OUNT . THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE M ADE OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS OF RS.2, 65,145/- AND SALE PROCEEDS OF JEWELLERY RS.3,17,105/- . SUBS EQUENTLY, 3 ITA NO.851/MDS/2016 THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED ONLY RS.1,27,505/- FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF HER JEWELL ERY, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDIT ION OF RS.1,90,000/- (RS.3,17,105 () RS. 1,27,505). FURT HER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY SUNDRY DEBTORS IN HE R BALANCE SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ADDI TION WAS MADE FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.2,65,145/- . ACCO RDINGLY, `4,55,145/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 5. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER AGREEING WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, IT WAS ONLY A OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT DISCLOSING THE SUNDRY DEBTORS CORRECTLY WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERI NG THE STATUS 4 ITA NO.851/MDS/2016 OF THE ASSESSEE IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THE ASSES SEE DID NOT POSSESS JEWELLERY OF RS.3,17,105/- WHICH SHE S OLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF HER BUSINESS. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEAD ED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DELETED. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND, VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUE A ND REQUESTED FOR SUSTAINING THEIR ORDERS. 8. 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 ASSESSEE IS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING AND HAILING FROM A MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY. SHE HAS ALSO DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1,49,555 /- FROM HER BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING. FROM THIS IT IS APPA RENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE HAVING REASONABLE ADVANCES TO COVER UP THE SUNDRY DEBTORS OF RS.2,65,145/- . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS FURTHER SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR RS.2,65,14 5/- 5 ITA NO.851/MDS/2016 BEING REALIZATION OF SUNDRY DEBTORS IS NOT WARRANTE D. SIMILARLY, ANY LADY OF THE ASSESSEES STATUS WOULD NORMALLY HA VE JEWELLERY WORTH THE AMOUNT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ADDIT ION OF RS.1,90,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIABLE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,55,145/- . IT IS ORDERE D ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .