Late Karupaiah Ramasamy (rep by Legal heirs) Ms K.Ramamirtam, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 885/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3869 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S VENUGOPALAN; SHRI M P RAD
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.885/MDS/2016 $ %$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 LATE KARUPAIAH RAMASAMY (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS), SMT.RAMAHAMIRTAM KARUPAIAH, NO.2, HARRINGTON ROAD, CHENNAI 600 031. [PAN NO.AFZPR5167F] V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI. ( &' /APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) &' * + /APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.VENUGOPALAN, C.A. ()&'*+ /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. M.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT , *-' /DATE OF HEARING : 13.06.2016 . % *-' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.09.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)-8, CHENNAI DATED 29.02.2016 AND PERTAINS TO AY 2008-09 . 2 I.T.A. NO.885/MDS/2016 2. SHRI S.VENUGOPALAN, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.12,7 7,000/- BEING THE DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDIAN BANK. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY DIRECTORS REMUNERATION. THE DIRECTORS REMUNERATIO N WAS DIRECTLY DEPOSITED BY THE COMPANY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE USED T O WITHDRAW THE MONEY TO MEET HIS MEDICAL AND OTHER EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO U SED TO WITHDRAW MONEY FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR MEETING SOME HUGE EXPENSES. WH EN EVER, THE MONEY IS NOT REQUIRED, THE ASSESSEE USED TO RE-DEPOSIT THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. BECAUSE OF ADVANCED AGE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO GO TO TH E BANK AS AND WHEN REQUIRED TO MEET THE URGENT EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, HE USED TO WITHDRAW THE MONEY IN LUMPSUM. THIS MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK WAS DEPOSITED IN THE INDIAN BANK. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI M.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT SU BMITTED THAT ON MANY OCCASIONS, THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK WAS DEPOSITED ON THE VERY SAME DAY OR THE NEXT WORKING DAY. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF CIT (A), MORE PARTICULARLY, AT PAGE 4, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT WHENE VER THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK, EQUAL AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED TO OTHER ACC OUNT. THERE WAS NO WITHDRAWAL FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2007 AND DECEMBER 2007. THE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS RS.2,30,450/-. THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED WAS RS.3,50,000/- ON 15.06.2007. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE ANOTHER DEPOSIT OF RS.1,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEPOSITED A SU M OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 06.03.2007 WHEN THE BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT WAS RS.1 ,87,959/-. THEREFORE, THE 3 I.T.A. NO.885/MDS/2016 ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THE CASH DEPOS ITED IN THE INDIAN BANK ACCOUNT WAS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIM BE FORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12,77,000/- ON VARIOUS DATES WAS OUT OF THE WITHDRAWAL MADE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT DUE TO ADVANCED AGE, HE USED TO WITHDRAW HUGE MONEY FOR ME ETING MEDICAL AND OTHER EXPENSES. WHENEVER THE MONEY IS NOT REQUIRED, THE A SSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SAME WOULD BE RE-DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. HOWEVER, NO MATE RIALS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO INDICATE THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN DURING THE EARLIER AS SESSMENT YEARS ARE THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK. THE CIT (A) HAS R EPRODUCED THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN 09.04.2007 TO 05.03.2008 IN HIS IMPUGNED OR DER, WHICH SHOWS WHENEVER THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED, AN EQUAL AMOUNT WAS EITHER TRANSFERRED OR PAID TO SOMEBODY ELSE. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE MONE Y WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. 5. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E AO. THE AO SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS THAT MA Y BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER BRING ON RECORD THE DETAILS OF THE SO CA LLED CASH WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BANK AND RE-DEPOSIT AND THEREAFTE R DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 I.T.A. NO.885/MDS/2016 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 06 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, / /DATED, THE 06 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. SP. * (-01 21%- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. ()&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 3- ( )/CIT(A) 4. , 3- /CIT, 5. 14 (- /DR 6. 5$ 6 /GF.