Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ (SMC
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R
This appeal filed by the assessee is aggrieved on sustenance of a disallowance of �6,05,500/- by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai through his order dated 27.04.2017.
Facts apropos are that assessee a salaried employee and 2. also having income from capital gains and other sources had ITA No.1397/Mds/2017. :- 2 -: maintained bank accounts with M/s. Axis Bank. Ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings found that there were certain cash deposits in such bank accounts. These cash deposits as listed by ld. Assessing Officer were as under:-
Sl.No Name of the Name of the Date Amount Bank A/c. Holder � 1 Axis Bank Malini Ramesh 19.12.2009 1,00,000 2 Axis Bank Malini Ramesh 22.12.2009 5,50,000 3 Axis Bank Malini Ramesh 06.03.2010 1,00,000 Axis Bank 4 Malini Ramesh & 17.12.2009 7,65,000 Ramesh Sridhar
Total Cash deposits in bank accounts 15,15,000 Explanation of the assessee was that she had received cash gift of �9,10,000/- from her husband who was working abroad. As per the assessee, her husband had an NRE account with State Bank of India and withdrawals from such NRE account were given to her as gifts.
Confirmations were also filed. However, as per ld. Assessing Officer against total bank deposits of �15,15,000/-, assessee could offer explanation only for �9,10,000/-. He made an addition for the balance sum of �6,05,000/-.
ITA No.1397/Mds/2017. :- 3 -:
In her appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), argument of the assessee was that, out of the credits which were considered for addition, there was deposit of �7,65,000/- on 17.12.2009 which was in a bank account which was held in her husband’s name. As per the assessee the cash flow statement proved the source for the deposits. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was of the opinion that the cash flow statement did not show the source of the deposits. He confirmed an addition of �6,05,000/-.
Now before me, ld. Authorised Representative strongly assailing the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that the bank account in which the sum of �7,65,000/- was deposited on 17.12.2009 was in the name of Shri. Ramesh Sridhar, husband of the assessee. According to ld. Authorised Representative assessee was only a joint holder. He contended that credits in such joint account of which primary name was that of assessee’s husband could not be considered for addition in assessee’s hand.
ITA No.1397/Mds/2017. :- 4 -:
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that just because the account was held in joint name assessee could not say that addition should only be made in her husband’s name.
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The total credits in the bank accounts aggregated to �15,15,000/-. Assessee’s explanation for the sum of �9,10,000/- out of the above, was accepted by the ld. Assessing Officer. Now the claim of the assessee is that �7,65,000/- deposited on 17.12.2009 was in an account of her husband Shri. Ramesh Sridhar who was an NRE. Assessee has placed on record copy of this account with M/s. Axis Bank. Caption of the said account reads as under:-
Ramesh Sreedhar Joint Holder :- Malini Ramesh No. 1171, TVS Colony, 57th Street, Anna Nagar West Ext Chennai Customer No.345015692 Tamil Nadu Scheme:- Savings – Easy Access 600101. Currency : INR It is clear from the above that the primary account holder was Shri.
Ramesh Sridhar and not Smt. Malini Ramesh the assessee. In my opinion, assessee could not have been saddled with a tax liability on credits made by her husband in an account of which he was the ITA No.1397/Mds/2017. :- 5 -: primary holder. That apart, I also find that Shri. Ramesh Sridhar was an assessee having PAN ALZPR0620D and had also filed a return for the impugned assessment year. I therefore find no reason to sustain the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Such addition stands deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 7.
Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 19th day of September, 2017, at Chennai.