ITO WARD 2, KANCHIPURAM vs. S.NAGESWARAN, KANCHIPURAM

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

C.O. No.56/Chny/2018 2. Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is addition of Rs.7,75,628/- U/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Even though the tax effect involved in this case is very low, the Revenue has filed the appeal since there was an audit objection. According to the Ld.DR, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.9,40,822/- as unexplained investment U/s.69 of the Act. The CIT(A) however sustained the addition of Rs.1,65,194/- and deleted the addition of Rs.7,75,606/-. According to the Ld.DR, the assessee has not maintained books of account. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that the source for Rs.59,178/- was from flower business. The fund flow statement said to be filed by the assessee could not be verified since the assessee has not maintained any books of account. There was no proper explanation forthcoming from the assessee to the extent of Rs.9,40,822/-, hence the Assessing Officer made the addition. Therefore the CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee.

C.O. No.56/Chny/2018 Mrs. Godhavari Nageswaran and two sons Shri N. Vinayagam & Shri N. Subramanian. The assessee engaged himself in the business of sale of flowers. The family members also assisted the assessee in the flower business and they are also paid salary. Interest also paid on the outstanding wages payable to the respective family members. In fact a sum of Rs.49,572/- was credited in the respective family members account. In the fund flow statement filed before the Assessing Officer, it was disclosed both wages and interest was due. It means that the entire amount was outstanding at the year end. The Assessing Officer has not considered this fund flow statement. Therefore the CIT(A) after considering the fund flow statement found that the assessee has explained the source to the extent of Rs.7,75,606/-. Accordingly he restricted the addition only to the extent of Rs.1,65,194/-.

C.O. No.56/Chny/2018 wife and two children found that the assessee has explained the source to the extent of Rs.7,75,606/-. In fact, the outstanding wages and interest on such wages are found to be genuine by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the explanation of the assessee found that the investment in kalyanamandapam to the extent of Rs.1,65,194/- cannot be accepted since no material evidence was available to support the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) has also found that the assessee has not paid any tax in any of the earlier years. The CIT(A) also found that the assessee’s two children are married and they are also having children. After considering the support from his family members and the expenditure incurred for maintaining the family, the CIT(A) found that the assessee’s explanation with regard to the source of Rs.1,65,194/- cannot be accepted. However he granted relief to the extent of Rs.7,75,606/-. The assessee has not challenged the order of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance to the extent of Rs.1,65,194/-. The Revenue alone is in appeal. Having taken into consideration, the income generated out of the flower business, the income of the assessee’s wife and his two children, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.7,75,606/-. It is not in C.O. No.56/Chny/2018 dispute that the assessee’s family consists of 8 members, the assessee constructed a kalynamandapam and the investment in other years. The Revenue has disputed the investment made by the assessee only for the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee disclosed the investment of Rs.79,115/- for the assessment year 2000-01. Similarly for the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee has disclosed Rs.94,704/-. Considering the family situation that there are two adult male children and they are also married, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that investment of Rs.7,75,606/- in the construction of the kalyanamandapam cannot be doubted. By taking into consideration of the existing economic scenario in this part of the country more particularly the salary and wages of the employees for the assessment year 2001-02, the family members and assessee could have earned Rs.7,75,606/-. Therefore the CIT(A) has rightly restricted the addition to Rs.1,65,194/-. Hence this Tribunal did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly the same is confirmed.

Order pronounced in the court on 18th July, 2019 at Chennai.