P.SHANTHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NAGAPATTINAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 475/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 December 2017AY 2007-084 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient sources for the capital introduced, considering the sale of property and income from other sources. The lower authorities' reasoning that income from an earlier year could not be a source for capital introduced in the current year was not accepted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partner in a firm, introduced cash of ₹6,88,559/- in her capital account. She explained this by citing the sale of a property and income from other sources in the current and preceding assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether income from other sources in a preceding year and sale of property can be considered as valid sources for cash introduced in the capital account of the current year.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ (SMC

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

Assessee in this appeal is aggrieved on an addition of �6,88,559/- confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) through his order dated 09.12.2016.

2.

Facts apropos are that assessee a partner in one M/s. Raja Agencies had filed her return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing income of �1,92,000/-. In the capital account filed

ITA No.475Mds/2017 :- 2 -: alongwith return, there were credits of �6,88,559/- in cash. Assessee was required to explain the source of the cash introduced. Reply of the assessee was that she had sold a property at Ponniah Chetty Street, Thiruthuraipoondi for a sum of �4,16,600/-. Further as per the assessee in the return of income for the assessment year 2006-2007, she had shown a sum of �1,40,000/- under the head ‘’income from Other Sources‘’. Apart from this, as per the assessee for the impugned assessment year also she had shown income of �1,65,000/- under the same head. Thus, as per the assessee she was having �7,21,600/- with her and out of such amount capital of �6,88,559/- was introduced. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not impressed by the above arguments. According to him, income under the head Other Sources could not be considered as source for money introduced in the capital account. Further, according to him, assessee’s explanation regarding sale consideration received on sale of property alone could not be accepted since there was difference between sale amount and actual payment received. An addition of �6,88,559/- was made.

Assessee’s appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income 3.

Tax (Appeals) did not meet with any success. According to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), assessee did not produce any ITA No.475Mds/2017 :- 3 -: evidence for substantiating its claim for the source of money introduced in the capital account.

4.

Now before me, ld. Authorised Representative strongly assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that assessee had sufficient source for cash introduced in her capital account.

According to him, this was disbelieved for no reasons.

Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 5.

supported the orders of the authorities below.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Assessee has not disputed that she had introduced �6,88,559/- in cash through her capital account.

Assessee claimed �4,16,600/- as coming out of sale of a property at Ponniah Chetty Street, Thiruthuraipoondi. Further, as per the assessee she had shown income from other sources of �1,40,000/- and �1,65,000/- respectively for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007- 2008. None of these contentions were found wrong or incorrect by the lower authorities. They simply refused to accept the explanation on a reasoning that income from other sources, for an earlier year could not be considered as source for capital introduced during the currency of the relevant previous year. I am afraid I cannot accept the ITA No.475Mds/2017 :- 4 -: view taken by the ld. Assessing Officer and ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Assessee had shown an aggregate amount �3,05,000/- as income under the head other sources in her returns for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-2008. Sale of the property was not been disputed by the Revenue. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that assessee had sufficient source for the capital of �6,88,559/- introduced by her in her capital account. A addition of �6,88,559/- stands deleted.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 19th day of December, 2017, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →