S.Suresh, Salem V. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

ITA 942/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3312 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SUNDARARAJAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Retraction; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , , [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.942/CHNY/2019 ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010. SHRI. S. SURESH, 7/16, NALLARAYANPATTY, ARIYANOOR, VEERAPANDY, SALEM TK, SALEM 636 308. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM 636 308. [PAN AZZPS 9875M] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '# $ % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE &' '# $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A. SUNDARARAJAN, ADDL. CIT. ( ) $ * /DATE OF HEARING : 24-10-2019 +,! $ * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-11-2019 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 6, CHENNAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 01.03.2019 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO. 942/2019 :- 2 -: THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THERE WAS A SE ARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSES SEE ON 22.05.2014. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 09.04.2015 TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME ON 07.05.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2 010. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPL ETED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCL E SALEM PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE ACT ON 29.12.2016 AT T OTAL INCOME OF RS.58,38,420/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE ADDITION OF RS.49,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON-MONEY PAYMENT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, BASED ON THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE SEIZED DAIRY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, WHEREIN TOTAL COST OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED WAS SHOWN AS RS.94,28,000 /- AND ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY AND ADMITTED TO PAY TAX ON UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CORRELAT ED THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE DIARY WITH THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.49,50,000/-. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION RELYING ON ITA NO. 942/2019 :- 3 -: THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF S. SHYAM KUMAR VS. ACIT (2018) 99 TAXMANN.COM 39 (MADR AS). 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT IS CONTENDED THAT NOTING IN THE DIARY DOES NOT INDICATE THAT ON-MONEY WAS PAID AND THE STATEMEN T RECORDED AT ODD TIME IS NOT BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE PLACING RELIAN CE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VS. CIT, (2010) 328 ITR 411. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RETRACTION OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN, SHOULD HA VE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT S INCE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT DISTURBED IN THE HANDS OF TH E TRANSFEROR, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT NOT HAVE UPHELD THE ADDITION. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APP EAL RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.49,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED UNDIS CLOSED INCOME IN THE FORM OF ON-MONEY PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PROP ERTY BUT IT APPEARS THAT STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED SUBSEQUENTLY . IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF DIARY C LEARLY INDICATE ITA NO. 942/2019 :- 4 -: PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE APPAREN T CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. THEREFORE DEHORSE THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CLEARLY IN DICATE PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY, THE SOURCE FOR WHICH REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F S. SHYAM KUMAR (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 11. WE FIND THAT THE CASE ON HAND IS NOT A SIMPLE CASE OF RELYING UPON SOME SCRIBBLING AND NOTINGS, BUT A CASE WHERE THE ENTRIE S, WHICH WERE CLEAR AND LEGIBLE, WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE CORRECTNESS OF WHICH WAS EXAMINED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND FURTHER EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THU S, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY GOOD GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL . IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 08 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER . ) / CHENNAI ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / / DATED: 08TH NOVEMBER, 2019 KV $ &*01 21!* / COPY TO: 1 . '# / APPELLANT 3. ( 3* () / CIT(A) 5. 16 &*7 / DR 2. &' '# / RESPONDENT 4. ( 3* / CIT 6. 8 9) / GF