What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had rejected the evidence produced by the assessees without proper examination. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The assessees, husband and wife, deposited significant cash amounts in their bank accounts. They initially claimed the funds were from the sale of inherited agricultural land, but later retracted and stated the money was from foreign earnings and agricultural income.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's explanation and evidence regarding cash deposits without proper examination.

Sheik Mohideen, Tindivanam vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 19.08.2019

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.3220/Chny/2018

ITA No.3221/Chny/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Vs. Sheik Mohideen, Income Tax Officer, 128,Pallivasal Street, Ward-2, Feruduos Nagar,Kooonimedu, Villupuram. Tindivanam 604 303. [PAN: DKHPS 1239 H ] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) : अपीलाथ* क- ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.T.Banusekar,C.A : +,यथ* क- ओर से /Respondent by Mr.M.S.Nethrapal,JCIT,D.R सुनवाई क- तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 19.08.2019 घोषणा क- तार"ख /Date of : 19.08.2019 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Smt.Gulzar Be, and & 3221 /Chny/2018 :- 2 -: assessee, namely, Sheik Mohideen, against the separate Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry, in ITA No.61/C.I.T(A)-PDY/2017-18 dated & in ITA No.60/C.I.T(A)-PDY/2017- 18, dated 26.09.2018 for assessment year 2012-13 respectively.

Mr.T.Banusekar, represented on behalf of the assessee and Mr. M.S.Nethrapal represented on behalf of the Revenue.

As these two appeals are related to husband and wife and inter- connected, both the appeals are disposed off by this common order.

It was noticed that assessee, Smt.Gulzar Be and Sheik Mohideen had deposited cash in their bank accounts with State Bank of India.

Smt.Gulzar Be had deposited Rs.55 lakhs and Sheik Mohideen had deposited around Rs.45 lakhs. On being questioned by Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit 2(1),Chennai, assessees had clarified that the assessee had sold 2.76 acres of inherited agricultural land to Shri Go.Neelaram on 28.04.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- in cash. The Sale Deed has been registered on 28.04.2011 for a consideration of Rs.17,82,000/- only. It was submitted that out of the said consideration, assessee, Sheik Mohideen had deposited Rs.45 lakhs in her bank account on 28.04.2011 and Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.40 lakhs on 27.01.2011 and 28.04.2011 respectively in the bank account of Smt.Gulzar Be, maintained with State Bank of India, Koonimedu Branch. The balance amount was utilized for purchase of 32 cent land at ECR Koonimedu and house construction. The assessee, Sheik Mohideen has also stated that the sale deed was signed by him, but not signed by the said buyer Shri & 3221 /Chny/2018 :- 3 -:

Go.Neelaram. It was submitted that subsequently in the course of assessment, the assessee retracted from such statement and submitted that he had worked in abroad and he had given the said amount of monies to his friends and relatives and the same was generated out of his foreign earnings, as also earnings from agricultural land and sale of milk. It was submitted that the assessee had produced confirmation letters from the various persons, but the same had been rejected by the Assessing Officer by stating that it was an after-thought. It was a submission that he had no objection, if the issue was restored to the file of Assessing Officer for examination of evidences produced. It was a prayer that the evidences produced by the assessee could not be rejected without examination.

In reply, ld.DR submitted tht the assessee had been changing his stand, which clearly showed that the funds were the assessee’s own funds.

In reply, ld.AR submitted that only income of assessee is from agricultural land and sale of milk, and the assessee is having no other source of income. If at all the Assessing Officer proposes to reject the assessee’s claim, the Assessing Officer must show at least the source from which could have earned such large incomes. It was a prayer that the issues may be restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee has changed his stand in respect of cash deposits in his bank & 3221 /Chny/2018 :- 4 -: account. The assessee has produced confirmation letters and details in respect of the revised stand taken by him. The Assessing Officer has not examined any of the evidences, but has rejected the same by stating that it is an after-thought, which is not permissible. In the circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, the issues raised in these appeals of husband and wife are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees, namely Smt.Gulzar Be and Sheik Mohideen for assessment year 2012-13, are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on the 19th August, 2019 in Chennai. (इंटूर" रामा राव) (जॉज" माथन) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (GEORGE MATHAN) "या"यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

SHEIK MOHIDEEN,TINDIVANAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments