PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. SMT.S.VENKATESWARI

We have heard MrT.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue in both the appeals and carefully perused the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. 4. With regard to T.C.A.No.416 of 2018, the Tribunal has granted relief to the assessee and we concur with the following finding rendered by the Tribunal and there can be no second opinion on the views expressed by the Tribunal more particularly in paragraph 7 of the order passed by the Tribunal which is quoted herein; “7. The assessee's mother appears to be housewife. She has to take care of household expenses. Whenever http://www.judis.nic.in 4 received money from husband or son for household expenses, Indian ladies use to save part of the money and whenever the husband or son urgently needs some money, the ladies use to give the same out of their savings. This saving habit of housewives in this Country, more particularly, in Southern part of the Country, cannot be ignored by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee's mother claims that she saved money given for household expenses and filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claim of the assessee's mother cannot be brushed aside so lightly without examining it. The assessment year under consideration is 2013-14. Even a mason or construction worker is receiving salary of Rs.400/- to 500/- per day. In this economic situation, there is no reason to doubt the capacity of the assessee's mother to give Rs.5,05,000/- to the assessee. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that all the ingredients which are necessary for proving the gift were established by the assessee. Therefore, the CITA is not justified in confirming the addition. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the addition of Rs.5,05,000/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted.” 5. The Revenue has not made out any ground to assail the above finding more particularly the question raised before us cannot be http://www.judis.nic.in 5 recorded as substantial question of law and hence T.C.A.No.416 of 2018 is dismissed as there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration. 6. In T.C.A.No.417 of 2018, though three substantial questions of law have been raised, all pertaining to the restriction of the disallowance as made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the arguments advanced by Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue reveals around manner in which Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined issue and it is being faulted on the ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have examined the Transporters recorded statements etc. This submission cannot be canvassed in an appeal filed under Section 260- A of the Act, as they cannot be recorded as substantial questions of law. 7. We have perused the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who has granted partial relief to the assessee and he has recorded specific finding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the freight charges to the tune of Rs.3,26,15,735/- on the reason that no evidence is not sustainable http://www.judis.nic.in 6 and assessee maintained books of accounts and there are clear entries of details of freight expenses and accordingly disallowance for non deduction of tax was restricted to Rs.44,30,887/-. 8. In this appeal, we cannot be called upon to re-examine the facts, entries in the books of accounts etc., which have been found to be justifiable by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and affirmed by the Tribunal. Hence, We are of the view that no substantial questions of law arises for consideration in T.C.A.No.417 of 2018 and accordingly dismissed. 9. In the result, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 14.06.2019 mrm Index: Yes/No To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench. http://www.judis.nic.in 7