K.J.Prabhakar, CHENNAI v. ACIT, Tambaram

ITA 703/CHNY/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 70321714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AGLPP7296C
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 703/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant K.J.Prabhakar, CHENNAI
Respondent ACIT, Tambaram
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 08-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 24-05-2011
Next Hearing Date 24-05-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 13-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI A BENCH CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. N.S. SAINI A.M . I.T.A. NO. 703/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 K.J. PRABHAKAR PLOT II ANNAI VELANKANNI NAGAR MADHANANDAPURAM PORUR CHENNAI 600 116. [PAN:AGLPP7296C] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE I TAMBARAM CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN JR. STANDING COUNSEL ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI J.M . THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IX CHENNAI DATED 18.02.2010 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 WHEREBY BESIDES CHALLENGING CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.6.00 LAKHS AS GIFT RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER AS UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED CONFIRMATION OF DISALL OWANCE OF RS.48 530/- BEING 25% OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS TRAVELLI NG AND CONVEYANCE TELEPHONE AND MOBILE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE DRIVERS SALARY DEPRECIATION ON CAR AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES AS PERSONAL IN NATURE. 2. FACTS INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.09.2006 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 81 930/ -. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE I.T.A. NO.703/MDS/10 2 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED RS.48 530/- TOWARDS EXP ENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE FOLLOWING HEADS: I) TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE RS. 53 610/- II) TELEPHONE & MOBILE RS. 22 810/- III) VEHICLE MAINTENANCE RS . 38 400/- IV) DRIVERS SALARY RS. 30 000/- V) DEPRECIATION ON CAR RS. 17 050/- VI) CONSULTANCY CHARGES RS. 32 250/- TOTAL RS. 1 94 120/- OUT OF WHICH 25% WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE PERSONAL E LEMENT INVOLVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ADDED RS.6 .00 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT FOR THE GIFT /LOAN RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER SHRI K. JAYARAMAPILLAI TREATING THAT HE HAD NO SUFF ICIENT SOURCES TO ADVANCE RS.6.00 LAKHS AS GIFT. 3. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED IS CONCERNED THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE MATTER IN APPEAL BUT SIMPLY R EITERATED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITHOUT MAKING ANY ARGUMENT BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) WHO WHILE CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I N THIS REGARD HAS OPINED THAT THE PERSONAL ELEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RULED OUT ON THESE EXPENSES SUCH AS TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE TELEPH ONE AND MOBILE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE DRIVERS SALARY DEPRECIATION ON CAR A ND CONSULTANCY CHARGES ETC. SO HE CONFIRMED ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION AGAINS T WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER APPEAL AND EXCEPT REITERATING THE GROUNDS A S RAISED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED AND IT WAS PRAY ED FOR TAKING AN APPROPRIATE DECISION IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. WHEREAS THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN I.T.A. NO.703/MDS/10 3 ABLE TO ESTABLISH THERE IS NO PERSONAL ELEMENT INVO LVED IN ALL THESE EXPENSES THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOU LD BE CONFIRMED. 4. WE AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSI DERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON SIX ITEMS A T RS . 1 94 120/- AND THE PERSONAL ELEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RULED OU T AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR MATE RIAL TO SHOW THAT DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF SUCH EXPENSES IN ANY WAY EXC ESSIVE OR NOT REASONABLE OR LIABLE TO BE DELETED THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION AS DRAWN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW S O CONCURRING WITH THEIR FINDINGS IN THIS REGARD WE CONFIRM SUCH DISALLOWAN CE WHILE DISMISSING THE PLEA AS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEING WITHOUT AN Y MERITS. 5. AS REGARDS CONFIRMATION OF SECOND ADDITION OF R S.6.00 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT FOR THE GIFT/LOAN RECEIVED FROM FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THAT HE HAD NO SUFFICIENT SOURCE TO ADVANCE SUCH AMOUNT THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL PROCEEDING FILE D ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND THE SAME WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHO WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH HIS COMMENTS. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FILED HIS REMAND REPORT ON 15.12.2009 COPY OF WHICH WAS FORWARDED T O THE ASSESSEE WHO FILED REPLY TO SUCH REMAND REPORT AND THE LD. CIT(A) WHI LE INCORPORATING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REPLY OF THE AS SESSEE IN LATER PART OF PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER HAS CONCLUDED TO DISMISS THIS GROUND O F APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA 6 AND THE SAID PORTION OF PARA 5 AND 6 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO.703/MDS/10 4 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN REQUESTED TO FURNISH SOURCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS .13 49 000/- MADE BY HIM DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE EXP LAINED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED MONEY FROM HIS FATHER AS WELL AS TWO BROTHERS HAD T HE MEANS TO MAKE THE GIFTS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THEM. HENCE THE ASSE SSEES CLAIM AS REGARDS THESE PERSONS WAS ACCEPTED. HOWEVER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER THE SOURCE OFFERED WAS NOT CONVINCING. HENCE THIS CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED FOR T HE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NO SOURCE TO ADVANCE A SUM OF RS.6 00 000/- AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF THIS PERSON CALLED SHRI M.J. VINOD. IF HE HAD ADVAN CED RS.3 00 000/- TO THE ASSESSEES FATHER WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE FORMED PART OF THE SAID SUM OF RS.6 00 000/- IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD WHAT PREVENTED T HE ASSESSEE FROM STATING SO BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. HERE AGAIN JU ST BECAUSE SHRI M.J. VINOD HAD THE MEANS TO MAKE THE GIFT IT IS NOT PROVED THA T HE HAD ACTUALLY MADE THE GIFT. AS I UNDERSTAND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE FOR THE SAID SUM OF RS.3 00 000/-. IT IS STATED BY SHRI VIN OD THAT THE SAID GIFT OF RS.3 00 000/- WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF HIS MARRIAGE. NORMALLY GIFTS ARE RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF HIS MARRIAGE AND NOT GIVEN. BE THAT AS IT MAY FROM THE CLAIM NOW MADE BY THE A SSESSEE IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. PROBABLY HE HIMSE LF IS CONVINCED THAT HIS FATHER DID NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO GIFT RS.6 00 000/- AND IS HENCE LOOKING FOR NEW SOURCES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MAY PLEASE BE SEEN THAT T HE FRESH CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A GENUINE ONE. IT IS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM MAY NOT BE ADMITTED. IN REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT THE LD. AR OF THE AS SESSEE HAS STATED AS FOLLOWS: MR. JAYARAMAPILLAI WAS A RETIRED GOVERNMENT PENSI ONER ALSO EARNING INCOME FROM RENT. HIS CHILDREN WERE WELL SETTLED S OME OF THEM OUTSIDE INDIA. ONE OF HIS GRANDSON M.J. VINOD WAS EMPLOYED IN GE RMANY. MR. VINODH HAD GROWN UP IN HIS GRANDFATHERS HOUSE AND THEREFORE H AD MUCH LOVE AND AFFECTION FOR HIS GRANDFATHER. IN MAY 2005 MR. VINODH CAME TO INDIA FOR HIS MARRIAGE. AT THAT TIME OUT OF THE LOVE AND AFFECTION FOR HIS GRANDFATHER HE GIFTED HIS GRANDFATHER SOME MONEY. THIS MONEY ALONG WITH SAVIN GS FROM HIS INCOME AND RECEIPTS FROM HIS OTHER CHILDREN WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIS GRANDFATHER MR. JAYARAMAPILLAI. 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. I F IND THAT GENERALLY THE I.T.A. NO.703/MDS/10 5 INDIAN CUSTOM IS THAT ONLY ELDERLY PEOPLE EXTEND GI FT TO THEIR GRANDSON/ GRANDDAUGHTER / SON / DAUGHTER AT THE TIME OF MARRI AGE. IN THIS CASE THE GRANDSON EXTENDED GIFT TO HIS GRANDFATHER IS NOT BE LIEVABLE. ACCORDINGLY THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOUND TO BE CO RRECT. HENCE I CONFIRM THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH IS ISSUE AND THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 6. STILL AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS CAME UP IN FU RTHER APPEAL IN THIS REGARD AND WHILE REITERATING THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL FROM GROUND NO. 1 TO 5 HAS PLEADED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.6 00 000/- M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). RELIANCE WAS PLACE D IN THE CASES OF CIT V. BHAICHAND H. GANDHI 141 ITR 67 (BOM) CIT V. TAJ BO PREWELLS 291 ITR 232 (MAD) SMT. MADHU RAITANI V. ACIT [2011] 10 TAXMANN .COM 206 (GAU. ITAT)(TM) AND DCIT V. OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK SAOG [2006] 100 ITD 285 (MUM)(SB) TO SUPPORT THE PLEA RAISED FOR DELETION O F ADDITION AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAVE NOT APPROPRIATELY C ONSIDERED THOSE DETAILS AND SINCE SOURCE OF AMOUNT TO GIFT/LOAN HAS BEEN PROVED THEREFORE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. MOREOVER IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW THE ADDITION COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 69 WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING AN Y BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN BANK PASS BOOK IS NOT ASSE SSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SAME WOULD NOT BE INCLUDABLE UNDER SECTION 68 ALSO AS BANK PASS BOOK SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE NEITHER ADDITION COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 68 NOR UNDER SECTION 69 BECAUSE ACCEPTING SMALL AMOUNT IS NOT AN INVESTMENT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE THIRD MEMBER AND LARGER BENCH DECIS ION CAN BE COMPARED WITH I.T.A. NO.703/MDS/10 6 THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH. THEREFORE IT WA S URGED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRME D BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7. THE LD. DR IN ORDER TO COUNTER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISER ABLY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF HAVING ACQUIRED AMOUNT OF RS.6 00 000/ - WHICH IS NOT FROM KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME EITHER OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTH ER PERSON BECAUSE AS PER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT HE OR HIS FATHER COULD SAVE RS.6 00 000/- BY PRODUCING NECESSARY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT RIGHT CONCLUSI ON AT THE TIME OF MAKING ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS WHILE SUBMITTING REMAND REPOR T AND THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND REM AND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO AN APPROPRIATE CONCLUSIO N TO MAKE/CONFIRM THE ADDITION. SO FOR AS WRONG MENTIONING OR NON-MENTION ING OF RELEVANT SECTION IS CONCERNED IT SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE ORDER IF IT IS OTHERWISE PROPER AND VALID. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED RS.6 00 0 00/- STATED TO BE A GIFT THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR WHICH HAS R IGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHOSE ACTION SHOULD BE FURTHER CONFIRMED. 8. IN ORDER TO COUNTER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY PLEADED THAT THE LD. DR IS MAKING SOME ASSUMPTION WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SINC E ASSESSEES FATHER HAD I.T.A. NO.703/MDS/10 7 RECEIVED GIFT OF RS.3 00 000/- FROM HIS GRANDSON W HO IS SERVING IN FOREIGN COUNTRY WHEN HE CAME TO INDIA FOR HIS MARRIAGE AND ALL NECESSARY DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS INCLUDING PASSPORT COPY CONFIRMATORY LET TER ETC. WERE FILED. THE ASSESSEES FATHER WAS ALSO HAVING GOOD SOURCE OF IN COME THEREFORE PROBABILITY OF MAKING GIFT OF SMALL AMOUNT OF RS.6 00 000/- SHO ULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED AND AS NECESSARY EVIDENCE IS FILED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD SENT THE MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHIL E CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MATERIAL ON REC ORD HE HAS NOT APPROPRIATELY APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON R ECORD WHICH CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE DONOR HAS SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF FUND TO GIVE SMALL AMOUNT OF RS.6 00 000/- TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE DECISION CITE D ARE ALSO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE ADDITION AS MADE/CONFIRMED WAS NOT CALLED FOR WHICH MAY BE DELETED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE R ECORD AND PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF NEW INDIA ASS URANCE CO. LD. AS PER THE ITS DATA DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASS ESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.3 00 000/- AS FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SER VICES FROM IFFCO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. HE HAD ALSO MADE A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS .13 49 000/- IN ING VYSYA BANK LTD. FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS OFFERED THE SAID SUM OF RS.3 00 000/- AS PROFESSIONAL FEES FOR ASSES SMENT. AS REGARDS THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.13 49 000/- THE ASSESSEES REPRESENT ATIVE HAS FILED A LETTER I.T.A. NO.703/MDS/10 8 EXPLAINING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE FOLLO WING AMOUNTS THAT CONSTITUTED THE SOURCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT: 1. GIFT FROM THE ASSESSEES FATHER RS. 6 00 000 2. GIFT FROM ASSESSEES ELDER BROTHER RS. 3 00 000 3. GIFT FROM ASSESSEES YOUNGER BROTHER RS. 2 00 0 00 TOTAL RS. 11 00 000 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE DETA ILS FURNISHED THE ASSESSEES ELDER AND YOUNGER BROTHER APPEARED TO BE WELL PLACED IN LIFE AND CAPABLE OF EXTENDING THE SAID LOANS HOWEVER THE A SSESSEES FATHER DID NOT APPEAR TO BE CAPABLE OF EXTENDING A LOAN OF RS.6 00 000/- FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 9.1 SHRI K. JAYARAMAPILLAI THE ASSESSEES FATHER AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS HAD RETIRED FROM GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN 1983. HIS INCOME IS ONLY THE MONTHLY PENSION HE RECEIVES. HE IS NOT ASSESSED TO INCOME T AX. THE SOURCE FOR THE GIFT OF RS.6 00 000/- IS SAID TO BE HIS PAST SAVINGS OF THIS PERSON. HOW THIS AMOUNT WAS ACCUMULATED AND IN WHAT MODE IT WAS KEPT HAS NO T BEEN EXPLAINED. OTHER THAN BLUNTLY STATING THAT A LOAN OF RS.6 00 000/- W AS GIVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. WHEN IT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THIS THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. THE MONEY WAS SAID TO BE P AID IN CASH. 9.2 FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE TRANSACTION IT IS IMPER ATIVE THAT DETAILS REGARDING IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE TO BE ESTABLISHED. BUT IN THE INSTANCE CASE ON LY IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WHEREAS NEITHER CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR NOR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAS BEEN PROVED. IN THIS CASE DURING THE YEAR I.T.A. NO.703/MDS/10 9 UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED TOTA L SUM OF RS.4 46 750/- [RS.3 00 000/- AS FEES FROM IFFCO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. AND RS.1 46 750/- AS PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FROM IRDA] OUT OF WHICH HE HA S CLAIMED RS.4 03 536/- AS EXPENSES AND OFFERED ONLY RS.43 214/- AS INCOME FRO M PROFESSION AND NOTHING MORE THAN THIS. 9.3 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V . P. MOHANAKALA & OTHERS [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) WHILE UPHOLDING THE FACTUAL ASPECT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AS REPORTED IN THE CASE OF A. RAJENDRAN & OTHERS V. CI T [2007] 291 ITR 178 AND NOTING THE DECISION OF SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT [1995] 2 14 ITR 801(SC) HAS HELD AS UNDER: HELD REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT TH AT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND T HE TRIBUNAL WERE BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND NOT ON ANY CONJ ECTURES AND SURMISES. THAT THE MONEY CAME BY WAY OF BANK CHEQUE S AND WAS PAID THROUGH THE PROCESS OF BANKING TRANSACTION WAS NOT BY ITSELF OF ANY CONSEQUENCE. THE HIGH COURT MISDIRECTED ITSELF AND ERRED IN DISTURBING THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT. 9.4 IN THE CASE IN HAND THE STATED TRANSACTION OF ALLEGED GIFT IS NOT EVEN THROUGH BANK OR BANKING CHANNEL AND THE WAS NOT ABL E TO EXPLAIN OR SUBSTANTIATE APPROPRIATELY THE SOURCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION AND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A LSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WHEN LAW REQUI RES THAT THE MERE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DONOR AND EVEN RECEIPT OF THE GIFT AMOUNT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT AND THAT APART THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE SAID DONOR WHO ALLEGED TO HAVE GIFTED THE AMOUNT I.T.A. NO.703/MDS/10 10 TO ASSESSEES FATHER OR HOW THAT MAN DID BRING SUC H AMOUNT IN INDIA AS HE IS STATED TO BE IN FOREIGN COUNTRY WAS NOT EXPLAINED N OR ANY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN THIS REGARD HAVE EVER BEEN FILED. THEREFORE CONSID ERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD AND LOOKING IN TO PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO OF DECISIO NS AS DISCUSSED WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS C LAIM OF HAVING EITHER RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF THE SAID TRANSACTION IN GIFT AND HAS ALSO NOT EVEN BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT HE COULD HIMSELF ACCUMULATE SUCH HUG E AMOUNT FROM THE SOURCES DISCLOSED THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE FULLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING/CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE AMOUNT O F RS.6 00 000/- FOUND TO BE CREDITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AS SUCH THEIR ACTION BEING FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY CORRECT IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE GETS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 08 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE. 08.07.2011 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.