Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
S Dilli, Tindivanam vs Ito Ward 2, Villipuram on 22 July, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, सी / एस एम सी यायपीठ, चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य केसम BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.892/Chny/2018 नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri S. Dilli, The Income Tax Officer, C/o A.N. Seetharaman & Co., v. Ward 2, Sri Rama Sadhanam, 1st floor, No.1, Chairman Subburayar St., New No.23, Chinnaiah Road, West Shanmughapuram, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Villupuram - 605 602. PAN : AFEPD 6253 M (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Viswanathan, FCA ()यथ' क* ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, JCIT सन ु वाई क* तार ख/Date of Hearing :02.07.2019 घोषणा क* तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2019 आदे श /O R D E R This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry, dated 11.01.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.
2. After hearing the Ld. representative for the assessee and the Ld. Departmental Representative, this Tribunal finds that the only 2 I.T.A. No.892/Chny/18 issue arises for consideration is cash credit in the capital account. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee received a sum of ₹35 lakhs as gift from his mother. The same was credited to the capital account of the assessee. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that his mother Smt. Thayalnayagi made gift out of her past savings and out of the profit of her paddy business during the year under consideration. The assessee also claimed before the Assessing Officer that his father was doing gunny business. However, the assessee has not filed any material evidence to suggest that the assessee's mother was doing paddy business.
3. Paddy is a controlled commodity. There is a restriction of movement of paddy. Under the Essential Commodities Act, the assessee has to necessarily obtain licence for engaging himself in the business of paddy and for movement of paddy from one district to another, the assessee has to necessarily get permission from the competent authorities who are nominated under the control orders. No such material is filed before the Assessing Officer or before this Tribunal. Therefore, when the assessee claims that his mother was doing paddy business, necessarily there shall be some material to support the claim of the assessee by way of licence / permit. Since 3 I.T.A. No.892/Chny/18 such a document was not filed, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the issue of gift of ₹35 lakhs from the assessee's mother is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re- examine the matter in the light of the documentary evidence like permit / licence for carrying the paddy business and permission for movement of paddy from one place to another that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 22nd July, 2019 at Chennai.
sd/-
(एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (N.R.S. Ganesan) या यक सद य/Judicial Member चे नई/Chennai, nd 2दनांक/Dated, the 22 July, 2019 Kri.
4 I.T.A. No.892/Chny/18आदे श क* ( त3ल4प अ5े4षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ'/Appellant
2. ()यथ'/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु6त (अपील)/CIT(A), Puducherry
4. Principal CIT, Puducherry
5. 4वभागीय ( त न ध/DR
6. गाड" फाईल/GF.