DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. ANNAMALAI ANNAMALAI SENTHILKUMAR, TRICHY

The Registry has noted delay of 53 days in revenue’s appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. AR has not objected to condonation of delay. Considering the same, the delay is condoned and we admit the appeal for adjudication.

The assessment has been made on best judgement basis. It was noted that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.10.69 Lacs in Axis Bank Account during demonetization period. The Ld. AO treated the same as out of unexplained sources and added the same u/s 69A. The Ld. AO also noted that the assessee entered into property sale transaction for Rs.150 Lacs. In the absence of any details as forthcoming from the assessee, the sale consideration was treated as unexplained income of the assessee.

During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that it withdrew cash of Rs.15 Lacs on 02-11-2016 and 03-11-2016 out of which an amount of Rs.10.50 Lacs was re-deposited in the bank account on 11-11-2016 after announcement of demonetization. The assessee also submitted that submissions made by him were not considered by Ld. AO. Regarding sale of property, it was submitted by the assessee that the said property was sold by Mrs. A. Kaveri as evident from Form 26AS.

The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition of cash deposits which is the grievance of the assessee. Regarding sale of property, Ld. AO was directed to verify the said transactions and take necessary action in the hands of Mrs. A. Kaveri which is the grievance of the revenue.

Upon perusal of bank statement as placed on record, it is evident that the assessee has withdrawn amount of Rs.15 Lacs on 02-11-2016 and 03-11-2016. On 11-11-2016, the assessee has deposited amount of Rs.10.50 Lacs after announcement of demonetization. The deposits are in very close proximity of earlier withdrawals. In the absence of any finding that the withdrawals were used for any other purposes, it could be concluded that the deposits were out of earlier withdrawals. Therefore, we delete the impugned addition and allow the appeal of the assessee.

The assessee has placed on record a copy of sale deed, copy of Form 26AS of Mrs. A. Kaveri and her computation of income. We find that the same is reflected in her Form 26AS. Upon perusal of assessee’s bank statement, it could be seen that the assessee has not received any part of the sale consideration. Therefore, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with. The revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.

The assessee’s appeal stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 6th May, 2024 (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) "ाियक सद! / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :06-05-2024 DS आदेशकी\ितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. " थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF