R.Baskaran, CHENNAI v. ITO, Theni

ITA 1384/CHNY/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 138421714 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ACCPB0454H
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1384/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant R.Baskaran, CHENNAI
Respondent ITO, Theni
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 01-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 01-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 01-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 01-02-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 02-08-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI C BENCH CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1384/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 R. BASKARAN PROPRIETOR K.P.R. DALL MILLS THENI 625 531 [PAN: ACCPB0454H] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I(1) THENI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T.N. SEETHARAMAN ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI T.N. PRAKASH JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 01.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.02.2012 ORDER PER N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) I MADURAI DATED 25.05.2011 PASSED IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005-06. SHRI T.N. SEETHARAMAN ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI T.N. PRAKASH JCIT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF O F THE REVENUE. 2. GROUND NO.1 AND 9 OF THE APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION BY US. GROUND NO. 3 READS AS UNDER: 3. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE REASON MENTIONE D IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 (DATED 10.03.08) VIZ. BEING A SURVEY CASE IS INSUFFICIENT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO JUSTIFY THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT INVOKING SECTION 147; THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THE ASSESSMENT MADE PURSUA NT TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 AS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CONTRAR Y TO THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1384/M/11 1384/M/11 1384/M/11 1384/M/11 2 PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND MADE AN ENDO RSEMENT TO THIS EFFECT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPEAL MEMO. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. IN GROUND NOS. 2 4 5 6 6 AND 8 THE SOLE IS SUE INVOLVED IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` .6 50 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN ASSESSE ES SAVING ACCOUNT NO.23247 WITH CANARA BANK THENI. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN T HE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE WERE DEPOSITS OF ` .6 50 000/- IN ASSESSEES SAVING ACCOUNT NO. 23247 WITH CANARA BAN K THENI BRANCH ON CERTAIN DATES AND THEY WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BO OKS OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFICATION REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW MONEY FROM HIS OD ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITED THE SAME IN HIS SAVING ACCOUNT AS NO SUCH AMOUNTS WERE WITHD RAWN FROM OD ACCOUNT ON THOSE DATES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PEAK CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT M AY BE CONSIDERED AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FELT THAT THESE DEPOSITS IN THE S AVING ACCOUNT DID NOT GET REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` .6 50 000/-. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1384/M/11 1384/M/11 1384/M/11 1384/M/11 3 6. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEES SAVING BANK ACCOUNT TRANSACTION IN ACCOUNT NO. 23247 WITH CANAR A BANK THENI BRANCH ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE CASH BOOK LEDGER AND TRIA L BALANCE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OCC ACCOUNT WITH CANARA BANK THENI (O CC A/C. NO. 25). ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME VIS--VIS S.B. ACCOUNT NO. 2 3247 FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD DID NOT INDICATE ANY FLOW OF FUNDS BETWEEN O CC ACCOUNT TO SAVING BANK ACCOUNT EXCEPT ON 08.11.2004 FOR A SUM OF ` .70 000/-. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THA T HE USED TO DRAW MONEY FROM HIS OCC ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITED THE SAME INTO HI S SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED CHEQUES FOR EXPENSES LIKE E LECTRICITY AND OTHER EXPENSES IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. THE LD. CIT (A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SOURCE FOR DEPOSITS OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARRIVED AT THE CORRECT CONCLUSION THAT NO SUCH AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN FROM OD ACCOUNT ON THOSE DAT ES. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ONLY THOSE DEPOSITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT FOR WHICH SATISFACT ORY EXPLANATION WAS NOT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE NO SATISFACTORY EXPL ANATION WAS OFFERED DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ALSO IN RESPECT OF SU CH DEPOSITS HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN TH IS REGARD WAS IN ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT HE IS ALSO NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1384/M/11 1384/M/11 1384/M/11 1384/M/11 4 ASSESSEES ARS CONTENTION THAT PEAK CREDIT SHOULD BE TAKEN. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT IS THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTA NCY THAT ANY TRANSACTION BY WAY OF CHEQUE OR CASH SHOULD GET REFLECTED IN PROPE R CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING DAY TODAY CAS H BOOK. IF CASH BALANCE PERIODICALLY AVAILABLE IN THE DAY BOOK WAS USED FOR DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK THEN SUCH TRANSACTION SHOULD GET REFLECTED IN THE CASH BOOK. BUT IT IS NOT SO IN RESPECT OF SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT DEPOSITS . ALSO WITHDRAWALS FROM SAVING BANK ACCOUNT ARE MOSTLY BY WAY OF CHEQUES. T HE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT S WITHDRAWN WERE SPENT FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEA RING SUBMITTED A STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF DEPOSIT IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 23247 WITH CANARA BANK ALONG WITH COPY OF BANK PASS BOOK. IN T HE STATEMENT HE HAS WORKED OUT THE TOTAL DEPOSITS AT ` .2 96 000/- THE SOURCE OF WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE PEAK CREDIT OF ` .2 84 000/- WHICH MAY BE SUSTAINED AND THE BALANCE ` .3 11 000/- BE DELETED. HE SUBMITTED THAT AFTER MAKING A DETAILED WORKING AS SUBMITTED DURING THE TIME OF HEARING HE HAS ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF ` .2 96 000/- WHICH IS UNEXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION AT ` .2 96 000/- SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT MAY BE DELETED. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1384/M/11 1384/M/11 1384/M/11 1384/M/11 5 8. THE LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF SAVIN G BANK ACCOUNT NO. 23247 AND THE WORKING OF THE DEFICIT AT ` .2 96 000/-. HE MERELY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE P EAK CREDIT BALANCE IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT IN QUESTION IS ` .2.00 LAKHS. FURTHER FROM THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF ` .2 96 000/- IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT AND SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF REMAINING BALANCE OF ` .3 54 000/- WAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM WITHD RAWALS. 9. THEREFORE WE MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO ` .2 96 000/- IN PLACE OF ` .6 50 000/- AND DELETE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ADDITI ON OF ` .3 54 000/-. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES ON 01.02.2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 01.02.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.