S DILLI, TINDIVANAM V. ITO WARD 2, VILLIPURAM

ITA 892/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7660 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANATH KUMAR RAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: R VISWANATHAN
• Keywords: Gift; Set aside

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.892/CHNY/2018 ' #$' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI S. DILLI, C/O A.N. SEETHARAMAN & CO., SRI RAMA SADHANAM, 1 ST FLOOR, NEW NO.23, CHINNAIAH ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 034. PAN : AFEPD 6253 M V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, NO.1, CHAIRMAN SUBBURAYAR ST., WEST SHANMUGHAPURAM, VILLUPURAM 605 602. (&'/ APPELLANT) (()&'/ RESPONDENT) &' * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. VISWANATHAN, FCA ()&' * + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANATH KUMAR RAHA, JCIT , # * -. / DATE OF HEARING :02.07.2019 /0$ * -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.07.2019 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUDUCHERR Y, DATED 11.01.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. AFTER HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THIS TRIBUNAL FIND S THAT THE ONLY 2 I.T.A. NO.892/CHNY/18 ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS CASH CREDIT IN TH E CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEI VED A SUM OF 35 LAKHS AS GIFT FROM HIS MOTHER. THE SAME WAS CRE DITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPL AINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HIS MOTHER SMT. THAYALNA YAGI MADE GIFT OUT OF HER PAST SAVINGS AND OUT OF THE PROFIT OF HE R PADDY BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HIS FATHER WAS DO ING GUNNY BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER WAS DOING PADDY BUSINESS. 3. PADDY IS A CONTROLLED COMMODITY. THERE IS A RES TRICTION OF MOVEMENT OF PADDY. UNDER THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY OBTAIN LICENCE FOR ENGA GING HIMSELF IN THE BUSINESS OF PADDY AND FOR MOVEMENT OF PADDY FRO M ONE DISTRICT TO ANOTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY GET PER MISSION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES WHO ARE NOMINATED UNDER THE C ONTROL ORDERS. NO SUCH MATERIAL IS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HIS MOTHER WAS DOING PADDY BUSINESS, NECESSARILY THERE SHALL BE SO ME MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF LICENCE / PERMIT. SINCE 3 I.T.A. NO.892/CHNY/18 SUCH A DOCUMENT WAS NOT FILED, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED. A CCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF GIFT OF 35 LAKHS FROM THE ASSESSEES MOTHER IS REMITTED BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LIKE PERMIT / LICENCE FOR CARRYING THE PADDY BUSINESS AN D PERMISSION FOR MOVEMENT OF PADDY FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER THAT MA Y BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRES H IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND JULY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED, THE 22 ND JULY, 2019 KRI. 4 I.T.A. NO.892/CHNY/18 * (-34 54$- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. ()&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 6- () /CIT(A), PUDUCHERRY 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, PUDUCHERRY 5. 4#7 (- /DR 6. 8' 9 /GF.