V.ARUMUGAPANDI, COIMBATORE V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE

ITA 972/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6510 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.972/Chny/2020 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr.V.Arumugapandi, No.3/35A, Amman Nagar, Siruvani Nagar, Coimbatore-641 024. v. The Asst. Commissioner – of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018. [PAN:AMLPA 1246 R] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by : None यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.M.Rajan, CIT सुनवाईक तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.08.2022 घोषणाक तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, dated 23.09.2020 pertaining to assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Common order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai - 34 dated 23.09.2020 in ITA Nos. 327 to 332/19-20 in so far as the issue contested in the present appeal pertaining to the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the relevant facts were completely ignored despite such facts were brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer and further before him and ought to note that the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as CIT (Appeals) is incorrect both on facts and in law. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the facts that Rs.56,430/- was spent for buying jewellery is well within his personal drawings of Rs.2,10,000/-. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI ी महावीर िसंह, उपा , एवं डॉ। दीपक पी. रपोटे, लेखा सद के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.972/Chny/2020 :: 2 :: 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining Unexplained Investment in Jewellery on reaching irrelevant conclusions while sustaining such sum in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justifications. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate thai presumption of 'Income from Other Sources' is wholly unjustified and ought to have appreciated that in the absence of direct evidence, the sustenance of the said additions were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and sustainable in law, thereby vitiating the findings in the impugned order. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the explanations offered. 7. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessment completed after search was bad in law and in the absence of direct evidence coupled with wrong initiation of the proceedings would vitiate the consequential search assessment on various facts. 8, The impugned order and the assessment order is a non-speaking order merely confirms the demand that the Appellant has not offered any explanation and not objected to the additions is wholly unsustainable and would be nullity in law. 9. The CIT (Appeals) has merely reiterated the order of the AssessingOfficer and has not dealt the issues independently by applying laws and the facts. 10. The CIT (Appeals) passed the impugned order without hearing the Appellant in violation of principles of natural justice would be nullity in law. 11. The appellant has reserve his right to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. The assessee field an affidavit with a request to condone the delay. We find that the delay was mainly because of pandemic. Hence, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is observed that these appeals were scheduled for hearing on multiple occasions. Therefore, this case is decided based on the merits of the case with the help of ld.Departmental Representative (DR). 5. We have heard the ld.DR and perused the materials available on record. There is only one issue of addition of Rs.56,430/- on account of unaccounted purchase of jewellery. The AO has noted in the assessment order that the assessee had purchased jewellery from M/s.Shree Kumaran Thangamaligai as evidenced by seized material. The amount of ITA No.972/Chny/2020 :: 3 :: Rs.56,430/- was paid by Debit Card by the assessee for purchase of jewellery. 6. The Ld.CIT(A) has merely confirmed the said addition, on the ground that assessee failed to file credible evidence in support of his arguments. 7. However, it is an admitted fact by the AO that the amount of Rs.56,430/- was paid by Debit Card. The AO has not discussed anything in the assessment order regarding the bank account, to which the said Debit Card is linked. The AO has nowhere mentioned in the assessment order that there is any undisclosed bank account. In this back ground, we are of the opinion that the addition of Rs.56,430/- is not maintainable. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.56,430/-. Therefore, assessee’s appeal is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 16 th day of August, 2022, in Chennai. Sd/- ( महावीर िसंह) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (डॉ। दीपक पी. रपोटे) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) लेखासद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 16 th August, 2022. TLN आदेशक ितिलिपअ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 4. आयकरआयु%/CIT 2. यथ /Respondent 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 3. आयकरआयु% (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड*फाईल/GF