VVR Venkatachalam, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITSSA 1/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2351 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTHJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: R SANKARANARAYANAN ACA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , .. ' #$, & '( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS) A. NO. 1/MDS/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 SHRI VVR VENKATACHALAM, NO.27, BEGUM SAHIB 3 RD STREET, BORDER THOTTAM, CHENNAI - 600 002. PAN : AADPV 2971 L V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE XIV, CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+/ APPELLANT) (-.*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SH. R. SANKARANARAYANAN, ACA -.*+ / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT ' / 1& / DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2016 234 / 1& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.09.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 10, CHEN NAI, DATED 16.12.2015 AND PERTAINS TO BLOCK PERIOD 1997-98 TO 2003-04. 2. SHRI R. SANKARANARAYANAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE 2 I.T.(SS) A. NO.1/MDS/16 ASSESSEE ON 06.09.2002. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITI GATION, THIS TRIBUNAL, BY ORDER DATED 17.04.2008, REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE UNE XPLAINED CASH OF ` 15,60,000/- WHICH WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 69A OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACCORDING TO THE L D. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL EST ATE AND HE IS ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS PROPRIETOR IN THE NAME AND S TYLE OF SHRI MAHALAKSHMI MOTORS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ONE OF TH E PARTNERS IN MAHALAKSHMI ENTERPRISE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H OPERATION, CASH OF ` 15,60,000/- WAS FOUND IN LOCKER NO.299 OF ICICI BAN K, R.H. BRANCH, CHENNAI. THE ASSESSEE ALSO WITHDREW MONEY FROM KARUR VYSYA BANK AND LAKSHMI VILAS BANK AND THE SAME WAS KEPT IN THE LOCKER. 3. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS DISPUTE IN THE FAMILY, THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSEE WITHDREW MONEY FROM BANK ACCOUNT AND KEPT IN THE LO CKER. THE ASSESSEES SON AND HIS SON-IN-LAW ARE MAKING CLAIM AGAINST THE MONEY AVAILABLE IN THE BANK, THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THE MONEY, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE IN KARUR VYSYA BANK AND LAKSHMI VILAS BANK, WAS KEPT IN THE BANK LOCKER OF ICICI BANK FOR SAFE CUSTODY. 3 I.T.(SS) A. NO.1/MDS/16 ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHEN THE BANK ACCOUNT ST ANDS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, HOW THE ASSESSEES SON AND SO N-IN-LAW CAN TAKE THE MONEY WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSE E? THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT OFFER ANY PROPER EXPLANATI ON. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, SINCE THE MONEY WITHDREW FR OM KARUR VYSYA BANK AND LAKSHMI VILAS BANK WAS KEPT IN THE LOCKER OF ICICI BANK, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND ` 15,60,000/- CASH IN THE LOCKER OF ICICI BANK WHICH STANDS IN THE NAME OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE MONEY WAS WITHDRAWN FROM KARUR VYSYA BANK AND LAKSH MI VILAS BANK. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CASH INVENTOR Y DISCLOSES THE BANK FROM WHICH THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN. THE CASH B UNDLE DOES NOT REFER TO EITHER KARUR VYSYA BANK OR LAKSHMI VIL AS BANK. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE MONEY WAS NOT WIT HDRAWN EITHER FROM KARUR VYSYA BANK OR LAKSHMI VILAS BANK. THERE FORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND T HAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MONEY WITHDREW FROM KARUR VYS YA BANK AND 4 I.T.(SS) A. NO.1/MDS/16 LAKSHMI VILAS BANK WAS KEPT IN ICICI BANK LOCKER FO R SAFE CUSTODY IS NOT CORRECT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., EVEN IF THERE WAS ANY DISPUTE IN THE FAMILY, AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE BANK ACCOUNT STANDS IN THE INDIV IDUAL NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, NO ONE INCLUDING THE ASSESSEES SON A ND SON-IN-LAW, CAN DRAW THE MONEY FROM THE BANK. THEREFORE, THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS SON AND SON-IN-LAW WAS TAKEN THE MONEY FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDING TO THE LD . D.R., THE MONEY KEPT IN THE BANK LOCKER IS NOTHING BUT UNACCOUNTED MONEY, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS SEARCH OPERATION IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSE E AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND ` 15,60,000/- IN THE LOCKER OF ICICI BANK WHICH STANDS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS DISPUTE IN THE FAMILY BETWEEN HIM AND HIS SON AND SON-IN-LAW AND, HIS SON AND SON-IN- LAW WERE MAKING CLAIM OVER THE MONEY KEPT IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, TO SAFEGUARD THE MONEY, THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED THAT THE 5 I.T.(SS) A. NO.1/MDS/16 SAME WAS WITHDRAWN FROM KARUR VYSYA BANK AND LAKSHM I VILAS BANK AND KEPT IN THE BANK LOCKER OF ICICI BANK, RH BRANCH. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, WHEN THE BANK ACCOUNT STANDS IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAME OF THE A SSESSEE, IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE ASSESSEES SON OR SON-IN-LAW COULD DR AW THE MONEY WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUN AL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAFE CUSTODY, IT WAS KEPT IN THE BANK LO CKER OF ICICI BANK IS NOT CONVINCING. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE CIT(APPEALS), THE INVENTORY FOUND IN THE CASH BUNDLE DOES NOT REF ER TO KARUR VYSYA BANK OR LAKSHMI VILAS BANK. THEREFORE, OBVIOUSLY, THE MONEY WAS WITHDRAWN FROM SOME OTHER BANK. WHEN THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY THE BANKERS, THEY WILL PUT THEIR STICKER OR LABE L TO INDICATE THE BRANCH NAME. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, NO REFERENCE A BOUT KARUR VYSYA BANK OR LAKSHMI VILAS BANK WAS FOUND IN THE C ASH BUNDLE. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM KARUR VYSYA BANK AND LAKSHMI VILAS BANK WAS KEPT IN THE LOCKER OF ICICI BANK IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MONEY FOUND IN THE ICICI BANK LOCK ER IS NOT THE MONEY SAID TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM KARUR VYSYA BANK AN D LAKSHMI VILAS BANK. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL, THE 6 I.T.(SS) A. NO.1/MDS/16 CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THIS IS UNACCOU NTED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS FACTUAL SITUATION, THIS TRIB UNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ' #$ ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. KRI. / -1#7 8741 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. -.*+ /RESPONDENT 3. ' 91 () /CIT(A)-10, CHENNAI-34 4. ' 91 /CIT-7, CHENNAI 5. 7: -1 /DR 6. ; < /GF.