PRABHA CHANDRASEKSAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW 2(5), CHENNAI

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Chennai, dated 19.02.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2008-09.

There was a delay of 300 days in filing this appeal by the assessee. I have gone through the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. I find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the stipulated time. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.

The notice of hearing was served on the assessee by RPAD. The Registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement as proof of service of notice on the assessee. Even after the receipt of notice, the assessee chose to remain absent when the appeal was taken up for hearing. Therefore, I heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.

Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee claimed capital gain of ₹2,02,160/- on sale of jewellery. According to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer on examination, found that there was cash deposit to the extent of ₹12.60 lakhs in the account maintained by the assessee with Kotak Mahindra Bank. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that the source for bank deposit was sale consideration of 1000 grams of 24 carat gold coins. However, the assessee could not produce any material evidence in support of the claim. According to the Ld. D.R., on examination of purchaser M/s Angamuthu Jewellers, they confirmed that they have not purchased any gold coins / gold jewellery from the assessee. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹12.60 lakhs as income from other sources by treating the same as unexplained deposit in the bank account. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) also confirmed the addition.

I have carefully gone through the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals). The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that the source for ₹12.60 lakhs is the sale of 1000 grams of 24 carat gold coins to M/s Angamuthu Jewellers. However, M/s Angamuthu Jewellers denied the purchase from the assessee. M/s Angamuthu Jewellers had also gone to the extent of stating before the Assessing Officer that they do not know the assessee at all. In view of the above statement, it is for the assessee to explain the source of deposit of ₹12.60 lakhs. The assessee has not produced any sale invoice or purchase bill issued by M/s Angamuthu Jewellers. In those circumstances, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.