Krithika Srinivasan, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 944/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8651 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MURUGABOOPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ ITA NO.944/MDS/2016 # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SMT. KRITHIKA SRINIVASAN, C/O SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE, NEW NO.14, OLD NO.82, FLAT NO.5, 1 ST AVENUE, INDIRA NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI - 600 020. PAN : AWEPS 3382 H V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 16(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. ('(/ APPELLANT) ()*'(/ RESPONDENT) '( + , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE )*'( + , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. MURUGABOOPATHY, ADDL. CI T - $ + ./ / DATE OF HEARING : 16.06.2016 01% + ./ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.08.2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 4, CHENNAI, DATED 07.01.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 15,11,000/- BEING THE 2 I.T.A.NO.944/MDS/16 AGGREGATE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCO UNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN IDBI BANK AND ALSO A FURTHER ADDITI ON OF ` 18,21,000/- BEING THE AGGREGATE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOU NT MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CO UNSEL, THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN IDBI BANK AND PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS), THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF CASH PAID AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROD UCED MATERIAL DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH THE POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURA L LAND AND CULTIVATION. THE CREDITORS HAVE GIVEN CONFORMATION LETTERS. THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER HAS CERTIFIED THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND. THE ADANGAL REGISTER SHOWS THAT THE LAND WAS CULTIVATED . THESE MATERIAL DOCUMENTS WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE MA TTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI M. MURUGABOOPATHY, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE DEPOSITED 3 I.T.A.NO.944/MDS/16 CASH IN IDBI BANK AND PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. THE DE TAILS OF MONTH WISE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT IN B OTH THE BANKS WERE REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 3 OF TH E IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN T HE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE FILED DECLARATIO N FROM THE CREDITORS CLAIMING THAT THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED FROM THEM. TH E CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DECLARANTS WAS ALSO ESTABLI SHED. 4. REFERRING TO THE DECLARATION GIVEN BY SHRI S. HA RIHARAN, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SHRI HARIHARAN WAS AGE D ABOUT 76 YEARS AND SAID TO HAVE GIFTED A SUM OF ` 10,60,000/- FROM AND OUT OF HIS FUNDS AT THE TIME OF EXPIRY OF HIS WIFE SMT. LALITHA. TH E SAID SHRI HARIHARAN IS NONE OTHER THAN FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE DECLARATION DOES NOT INDICATE WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS A CTUALLY GIVEN. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER RIGHTLY CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. D.R. FURT HER POINTED OUT THAT WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, IDENT IFICATION OF THE CREDITORS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF CREDITORS. SINCE THESE FACTORS WERE 4 I.T.A.NO.944/MDS/16 NOT ESTABLISHED, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHE R SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 15,11,000/- IN IDBI BANK AND ` 18,21,000/- IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE SOURCE OF INCOME WAS THE GIFT GIVEN BY HER FATHER- IN-LAW OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. TO SUPPORT THE SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE NOW PRODUCED BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OF FICER AND COPY OF VILLAGE ADANGAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SAID TO HAV E RECEIVED GIFTS FROM HER FATHER AND HER MOTHER-IN-LAW, WHO ARE LIVI NG WITH HER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMS THE RECEIPT OF GIFTS ON CEREMO NIAL OCCASIONS LIKE BIRTHDAY, WEDDING DAY, DEEPAVALI, PONGAL, ETC. THE MATERIAL NOW FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEES FATH ER-IN-LAW WAS HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE SAME WAS SUBJECTE D TO CULTIVATION. THE ADANGAL REGISTER SHOWS THAT PADDY WAS CULTIVATE D IN THE LAND. 6. FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH IN REGULAR INTERVALS. THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO 5 I.T.A.NO.944/MDS/16 EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACC OUNT. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IT APPEARS THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS WERE MAINLY DIVERTED TO FIXED DEPOSITS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND SHRI N. SRINIVASAN. IT IS ALSO FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE BY IN VESTING THE MONEY IN STOCK MARKET THROUGH KARVY STOCKS. WHEN THE ASSE SSEE HAS DEPOSITED HUGE MONEY IN THE BANK, IT IS FOR THE ASS ESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY RECEIVED. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE WOULD NOT PREJUDICE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN ANY WAY. GIVI NG OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF MONEY, WHICH WAS USED IN MAKING DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, WOULD PROMOTE THE CA USE OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRES H IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REG ARD TO SOURCE OF INCOME AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6 I.T.A.NO.944/MDS/16 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3! /DATED, THE 18 TH AUGUST, 2016. KRI. + ).45 65%. /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 2. )*'( /RESPONDENT 3. - 7. () /CIT(A)-4, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, CHENN AI 5. 5$8 ). /DR 6. 9# : /GF.