Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ C’ (SMC
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R
Assessee in this appeal is aggrieved that an addition of �20,00,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer was confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Facts apropos are that assessee an salaried employee has 2. filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring
ITA No. 1115/Mds/2016 :- 2 -: an income of �9,48,460/-. Ld. Assessing Officer was having information that assessee had deposited a sum of �20,00,000/- on 16.03.2010 in his account in HDFC Bank, Anna Salai branch. Source of the deposits were sought. Reply of the assessee was that his father who had agricultural land at Palakkad, had sold such land and the consideration was deposited in assessee’s bank account. In support of his contention, assessee filed copies of the sale deed of the agricultural land. Further, as per assessee, apart from �10,00,000/- received on sale of the property, assessee’s father had also given him a further sum of �10,00,000/- received on sale of standing trees. Ld. Assessing Officer after verifying the claim of the assessee found that sale of the property by assessee’s father Shri. P.R. Venkatachalam was effected on 08.01.2009, whereas the deposits in bank account was only on 16.03.2010. Further as per ld. Assessing Officer the further sum of �10,00,000/- claimed as receipt on sale of standing crops was not evidenced or substantiated. He refused to believe the claim of the assessee and made an addition of �20,00,000/-, considering the deposit in bank account as unexplained.
Aggrieved, the assessee moved in appeal before ld. 3.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Argument of the assessee was that assessee and his father were settled in Chennai. As per the assessee, the property which was sold by his father was under ITA No. 1115/Mds/2016 :- 3 -: litigation for number of years and it was only on 05.02.2008, based on a family agreement, assessee’s father received 2.50 acres as his share.
As per the assessee, his father Shri. P.R. Venkitachalam was ailing from cancer and undergoing treatment in Chennai and staying with him. According to him, Shri. P.R. Venkitachalam had undergone a major surgery in Billroth Hospital on 24.05.2008. Contention of the assessee was that the sum of �10,00,000/- received on sale of land by his father, was entrusted to him since he was looking after his father and was meeting his cost of the treatment. Similarly, as per the assessee a sum of �10,00,000/- received on sale of standing trees effected before sale of the land, was also given to him for safe custody. Thus, as per assessee the source was clearly proved and additions were unjustly made.
However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not 4. accept the above contentions of the assessee. According to him, the time gap between sale of the land by assessee’s father and the deposits in bank account was too huge to believe the contentions of the assessee. Further, as per ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessee could not submit any evidence for sale of standing crops claimed to have done in June 2008.
ITA No. 1115/Mds/2016 :- 4 -:
Now before me, ld. Authorised Representative strongly 5. assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that assessee’s father was suffering from Cancer and staying alongwith assessee while being treated at Billroth Hospital. According to him, the property was sold on 8th January, 2009 whereas assessee’s father underwent operation in Billroth Hospital in May, 2008. Thus, according to him, claim of the assessee was unfairly rejected.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 6.
supported the orders of the authorities below
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed by the lower authorities that assessee’s father Shri. P.R. Venkitachalam had sold 2.5 acres of land at Palakad for a sum of �10,00,000/- on 8th January, 2009. Assessee had produced records showing that assessee’s father was undergoing treatment for cancer at Billroth Hospital since May, 2008. Assessee had also produced treatment records from the Billroth Hospital. Hence preponderance of probability is that when the sale of the property was effected by his ailing father on 8th January, 2009 he would have given the money to his son who was looking after him. Just because there is a gap of 14 months, I am of the opinion that source for �10,00,000/- being the sale consideration received,
ITA No. 1115/Mds/2016 :- 5 -: ought not have been disbelieved. So far as the balance sum of �10,00,000/- claimed as received on sale of standing trees, no evidence was produced by the assessee before lower authorities except for submissions. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that source for �10,00,000/- out of �20,00,000/- deposited by the assessee in his HDFC account on 16.03.2010 stands explained. Addition made is reduced to �10,00,000/- or in other words, addition of �10,00,000/- is only sustained and the balance addition is deleted.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 8.