K.M.CHIDAMBARASAMY,SALEM vs. ITO, TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1281/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 September 2017AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submission regarding the source of funds needed detailed verification. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-nova consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in charcoal manufacturing, filed his return for AY 2013-14. The AO made an addition of Rs. 41,12,579/- towards undisclosed investments in fixed deposits, which was sustained by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 41,12,579/- were undisclosed investments and if the assessee could substantiate their source.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Hearing: 21.09.2017

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore dated 27.02.2017 in Appeal No.38/16-17 for the assessment year 2013-14 passed u/s.250(6) r.w.s.143(3) of the Act.

2.

The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld.AO towards fixed deposits amounting to Rs.41,12,579/- U/s.69 of the Act by holding it as undisclosed investments.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of charcoal manufacturing, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 16.09.2013 admitting total income of Rs.3,23,940/- and agricultural income of Rs.93,600/-. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and finally assessment order was passed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 30.03.2016, wherein the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.41,12,576/- towards undisclosed investments U/s.69 of the Act.

4.

During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO observed that the assessee had submitted that he is maintaining only three bank accounts detailed as follows:

Sl.No. Name of the Bank / Closing balance as Account No. on 31.03.2013 1. State Bank of India, Kethanur 1,16,827 A/c. No.11401890133 SB A/c. 2 State Bank of India, Palladam 2,78,210 A/c. No.32026988492 Current A/c. 3 State Bank of India, Palladam 30,08,548 A/c. No.30596385599 SB A/c.

Further enquiry with the above mentioned bank Managers revealed that the assessee was having the following bank accounts which were not disclosed in his books of accounts.

S. Name of the Bank / Account No. Product Name Credits Closing No during the balance as on year 31.3.2013 1 State Bank of India, Kethanur STD-GEN-PUB 10,17,334 10,00,000 IND-1Y-455D-INR A/c. No32301496486 2 STD-GEN-PUB 95,245 10,76,284 State Bank of India, Kethanur IND-1Y-455D-INR A/c. No.31988450660 3 State Bank of India, Kethanur STD-GEN-PUB- 10,00,000 10,00,000 IND-3<5Y-INR A/c. No.32892487454 4 State Bank of India, Palladam STD-GEN-PUB- 5,00,000 5,00,000 A/c. No.32908735530 IND-3<5Y-INR 5 State Bank of India, Palladam STD-GEN-PUB- 5,00,000 5,00,000 A/c. No.32829303348 IND-1Y-455D-INR 6 STD-GEN-PUB- 5,00,000 5,00,000 State Bank of India, Palladam IND-1Y-455D-INR A/c. No.32829302775 7 State Bank of India, Palladam STD-GEN-PUB- 5,00,000 5,00,000 IND-3<5Y-INR A/c. No.32908712670 Total Investments during the year 41,12,579

On query the assessee could not substantiate the source of the credit balance in the bank account amounting to Rs.41,12,579/-. Therefore the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.41,12,579/- as the undisclosed investment of the assessee U/s. 69 of the Act. On appeal, the assessee was not able to explain the source of the credits in his bank account even before the Ld.CIT(A). Hence he sustained the addition of Rs.41,12,579/-.

6.

Before me the Ld.AR submitted that all the bank deposits are out of the withdrawals from the same bank accounts on different dates and therefore the entire amount cannot be added to the income of the assessee as undisclosed investments. He therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh consideration. The Ld.DR vehemently

7.

I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. Considering the prayer of the Ld.AR, I am of the considered view that the submission of the Ld.AR needs to be verified in detail by the Ld.AO. Therefore in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.AO for de-nova consideration.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 21st September, 2017 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →