SHANMUGAM MITHUN , COIMBATORE V. ITO , COIMBATORE

ITA 945/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Shanmugam Mithun against the order of the CIT(A)-16, Chennai, which confirmed the addition of cash deposits amounting to Rs.10,92,000/- in the assessee's bank account during the demonetization period. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore, had initially made this addition under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal considered the withdrawals made by the assessee and his parents during the relevant period and the explanations provided regarding the source of the deposits. After evaluating the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal concluded that a portion of the deposits could be explained by the withdrawals and estimated the unexplained portion at Rs.5.00 lakhs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135515 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘ सी’ ाय पीठ, चे ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी महावीर िसंह, उपा एवं ी अ ण खोडिपया, लेखा सद% के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I. T. A. N o. 9 4 5 / C hny / 2 0 2 2 (िनधा रणवष / A s se s s m e nt Yea r : 2 01 7- 18 ) Shri Shanmugam Mithun 1A, Tagore Street, P.N. Pudur, Coimbatore-641 041. V s The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore. P AN : B JP P M 5 9 6 4 G (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. N.V.Balaji, Advocate यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाईक तारीख/D a t e o f h e a r i n g : 15.03.2023 घोषणाक तारीख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 15.03.2023 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order passed by the CIT(A)-16, Chennai, vide ITA No.68/CIT(A)-16/ 2019-20 dated 14.10.2022. The assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore, for the relevant assessment year 2017-18 u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide order dated 15.11.2019. 2. The only issue in the appeal of the assessee is as regards to order of the CIT(A) confirming action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of cash deposits in assessee’s bank 2 ITA No. 945/Chny/2022 account during demonetization period in regard to (SBN) amounting to Rs.10,92,000/- 3. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessing Officer without elaborating much made addition of cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account No.5015237424 amounting to Rs.10,92,000/- being demonetized currency. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed action of the Assessing Officer without considering withdrawals made by the assessee and explanation given by the assessee. Aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have gone through case records and noted that the assessee has withdrawn following amounts during below mentioned period from his Citi Bank Account:- 3 ITA No. 945/Chny/2022 The assessee has also explained withdrawals made by assessee’s parents during the period at Rs.3,41,700/- which reads as under:- We noted that the assessee was originally employed in India with Citi Bank between October, 2012 to January, 2015. In the month of February,2015, the assessee got employment with Standard Chartered Holdings, Dubai, UAE., and thereafter the assessee moved to Noor bank and currently he is working in Huspy Morgages, since September, 2021. The assessee, after moving to UAE visited India once in a while, but apart from his salary income earned in UAE, the assessee did not have any other source of income in India. The assessee has old parents, mother and father, who were staying in ancestral house. The assessee’s father had made withdrawals on various dates 4 ITA No. 945/Chny/2022 amounting to Rs.10,93,000/- between 07.03.2016 and 28.10.2016 from assessee’s Citi Bank account. The assessee’s source of income is only salary income. The assessee’s parents also made withdrawals from their own bank accounts and relevant details of withdrawals are already reproduced hereinabove. The total withdrawals from assessee’s bank account is Rs. 10,93,000/- plus from parents account Rs.3,41,700/- during the period 07.03.2016 to 11.07.2016 that comes to Rs.14,37,700/-. The assessee during the demonetization period deposited a sum of Rs.10,92,000/- in his Citi Bank account, out of the withdrawals made during last 6 to 8 months. The assessee tried to explain that there was gap of 5 months between withdrawals and deposits, as the assessee visited India on 28.10.2016 and visited plots selected by his father, who has advanced money to various brokers for purchase of plots, but, deal could not be materialized and hence, cash was kept at home. 6. We have gone through assessment order and order of the CIT(A) and noted that neither of the authorities below have explained that how old parents can spend Rs.14,37,700/-, apart 5 ITA No. 945/Chny/2022 from their household expenses. The aged parents can spend only either for medical treatment or daily expenses, apart from that there is no expenditure. Hence, according to us, assessee’s withdrawal might have been utilized for re- depositing during demonetization period and for that we have to make fair estimate. In any case, we feel that a reasonable estimate will be that the assessee’s father might have spent some money out of withdrawals made from assessee’s bank account, but not in entirety. Hence, we estimate unexplained cash deposit in the bank account at Rs.5.00 lakhs and balance amount of Rs.5,92,000/-, we delete. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15 th March, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (अ ण खोडिपया) ( महावीर िसंह ) ( Arun Khodpia ) ( Mahavir Singh) लेखा सद य लेखा सद यलेखा सद य लेखा सद य / Accountant Member उपा य उपा य उपा य उपा य / Vice-President चे ई/Chennai, दनांक/Date: 15.03.2023 DS आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आयु (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु /CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF.