Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Vvr Venkatachalam, Chennai vs Assessee on 15 September, 2016
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, 'सी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'C' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी ड.एस. सु दर #संह, लेखा सद य केसम(
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.(SS) A. No. 1/Mds/2016
Block Period : 1997-98 to 2003-04
Shri VVR Venkatachalam, The Assistant Commissioner of
No.27, Begum Sahib 3rd Street, v. Income Tax,
Border Thottam, Business Circle XIV,
Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034.
PAN : AADPV 2971 L
(अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (-.यथ+/Respondent)
अपीलाथ+ क/ ओर से/Appellant by : Sh. R. Sankaranarayanan, ACA
-.यथ+ क/ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
सन
ु वाई क/ तार
ख/Date of Hearing : 25.07.2016
घोषणा क/ तार
ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.09.2016
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Chennai, dated 16.12.2015 and pertains to block period 1997-98 to 2003-04.
2. Shri R. Sankaranarayanan, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that there was a search in the premises of the 2 I.T.(SS) A. No.1/Mds/16 assessee on 06.09.2002. In the first round of litigation, this Tribunal, by order dated 17.04.2008, remanded back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the unexplained cash of `15,60,000/- which was added under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. representative, the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and he is also doing business as proprietor in the name and style of Shri Mahalakshmi Motors. The assessee is also one of the partners in Mahalakshmi Enterprise. During the course of search operation, cash of `15,60,000/- was found in locker No.299 of ICICI Bank, R.H. Branch, Chennai. The assessee also withdrew money from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank and the same was kept in the locker.
3. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that there was dispute in the family, therefore, the assessee withdrew money from bank account and kept in the locker. The assessee's son and his son-in-law are making claim against the money available in the bank, therefore, in order to safeguard the money, which was available in Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank, was kept in the bank locker of ICICI Bank for safe custody. 3 I.T.(SS) A. No.1/Mds/16 On a query from the Bench, when the bank account stands in the name of the assessee, how the assessee's son and son-in-law can take the money without the knowledge of the assessee? The Ld. representative could not offer any proper explanation. According to the Ld. representative, since the money withdrew from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank was kept in the locker of ICICI Bank, there cannot be any addition for the block period.
4. On the contrary, Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that during the course of search operation, the Revenue authorities found `15,60,000/- cash in the locker of ICICI Bank which stands in the name of the assessee. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that the money was withdrawn from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank. According to the Ld. D.R., the cash inventory discloses the bank from which the cash was withdrawn. The cash bundle does not refer to either Karur Vysya Bank or Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Therefore, it is obvious that the money was not withdrawn either from Karur Vysya Bank or Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) found that the claim of the assessee that the money withdrew from Karur Vysya Bank and 4 I.T.(SS) A. No.1/Mds/16 Lakshmi Vilas Bank was kept in ICICI Bank locker for safe custody is not correct. According to the Ld. D.R., even if there was any dispute in the family, as contended by the Ld. representative for the assessee, when the bank account stands in the individual name of the assessee, no one including the assessee's son and son-in-law, can draw the money from the bank. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that his son and son-in-law was taken the money from the bank account is not justified. According to the Ld. D.R., the money kept in the bank locker is nothing but unaccounted money, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, there was search operation in the premises of the assessee and the Revenue authorities found `15,60,000/- in the locker of ICICI Bank which stands in the name of the assessee. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that there was dispute in the family between him and his son and son-in-law and, his son and son-in- law were making claim over the money kept in the bank account. Therefore, to safeguard the money, the assessee claimed that the 5 I.T.(SS) A. No.1/Mds/16 same was withdrawn from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank and kept in the bank locker of ICICI Bank, RH Branch. As rightly contended by the Ld. Departmental Representative, when the bank account stands in the individual name of the assessee, it is not known how the assessee's son or son-in-law could draw the money without the knowledge of the assessee. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claim of the assessee that for the purpose of safe custody, it was kept in the bank locker of ICICI Bank is not convincing. As rightly observed by the CIT(Appeals), the inventory found in the cash bundle does not refer to Karur Vysya Bank or Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Therefore, obviously, the money was withdrawn from some other bank. When the money was received by the bankers, they will put their sticker or label to indicate the branch name. In the case before us, no reference about Karur Vysya Bank or Lakshmi Vilas Bank was found in the cash bundle. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the money withdrawn from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank was kept in the locker of ICICI Bank is not substantiated. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the money found in the ICICI Bank locker is not the money said to be withdrawn from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Therefore, in the absence of any other material, the 6 I.T.(SS) A. No.1/Mds/16 CIT(Appeals) has rightly found that this is unaccounted money of the assessee. In this factual situation, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 15th September, 2016 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
ु दर #संह)
( ड.एस. स (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(D.S. Sunder Singh) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
th
6दनांक/Dated, the 15 September, 2016.
Kri.
आदे श क/ - त#ल7प अ8े7षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant
2. -.यथ+/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु9त (अपील)/CIT(A)-10, Chennai-34
4. आयकर आयु9त/CIT-7, Chennai
5. 7वभागीय - त न ध/DR
6. गाड; फाईल/GF.