Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Acit, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs Maheswari, Pudukottai on 13 March, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'बी' यायपीठ, चे नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'B' BENCH: CHENNAI
ी जॉज माथन, या यक सद!य एवं
ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद य के सम"
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND
SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.35/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2014-15
Shri Subramanian Kulanthyaian, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of-
D-102, Gray Shoot Apartments, Income Tax,
No.4, Bishop Garden Extension, Corporate Circle-2,
R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028. Trichy.
[PAN: AHZPK 0911 G]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.155/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2014-15
The Asst. Commissioner of- Vs. Shri Subramanian-
Income Tax, Kulanthyaian,
Corporate Circle-2, D-102, Gray Shoot
Trichy. Apartments, No.4, Bishop
Garden Extension,
R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028.
[PAN: AHZPK 0911 G]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.36/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12
Shri A. Rameshkumar, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of-
Bhuvana Palace, Income Tax,
No.108, Siva Subramanian Road, Corporate Circle-2,
Near D.B.Road, R.S.Puram, Trichy.
Coimbatore.
[PAN: ACFPR 5984 D]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
ITA Nos.35-38/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.40-43/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.154-156/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.158-159/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.164-168/Chny/2018
:- 2 -:
आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.165 & 166/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15
The Asst. Commissioner of- Vs. Shri A. Rameshkumar,
Income Tax, Bhuvana Palace,
Corporate Circle-2, No.108, Siva Subramanian
Trichy. Road, Near D.B.Road,
R.S.Puram, Coimbatore.
[PAN: ACFPR 5984 D]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.40/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2014-15
Shri Ramasamy Subramanian, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of-
No.45/1039, S.K.Nivash, Income Tax,
Mukkannar Street, Central Circle-2,
Kumbakonam-612 001. Trichy.
[PAN: BUVPS 4246 J]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.41/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12
Shri Avathan Marimuthu, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of-
No.29/94, East Third Street, Income Tax,
Pudukkottai-622 001. Central Circle-2,
Trichy.
[PAN: AAKPM 4866 C]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.158/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12
The Asst. Commissioner of- Vs. Shri Avathan Marimuthu,
Income Tax, No.29/94, East Third Street,
Central Circle-2, Pudukkottai-622 001.
Trichy.
[PAN: AAKPM 4866 C]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
ITA Nos.35-38/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.40-43/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.154-156/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.158-159/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.164-168/Chny/2018
:- 3 -:
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.42/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12
Smt. Maheswari, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of-
No.113, Nizam Colony, Income Tax,
Pudukkottai-622 001. Central Circle-2,
Trichy.
[PAN: AAIPM 6651 M]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.168/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12
The Asst. Commissioner of- Vs. Smt. Maheswari,
Income Tax, No.113, Nizam Colony,
Central Circle-2, Pudukkottai-622 001.
Trichy.
[PAN: AAIPM 6651 M]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.43/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12
Shri Avathan Chettiar Sureshkumar, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of-
No.113, Nizam Colony, Income Tax,
Pudukkottai-622 001. Central Circle-2,
Trichy.
[PAN: AGEPS 4915 J]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.167/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12
The Asst. Commissioner of- Vs. Shri Avathan Chettiar -
Income Tax, Sureshkumar,
Central Circle-2, No.113, Nizam Colony,
Trichy Pudukkottai-622 001.
[PAN: AGEPS 4915 J]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
ITA Nos.35-38/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.40-43/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.154-156/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.158-159/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.164-168/Chny/2018
:- 4 -:
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.37/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12
Shri Chidambaram Arumugam, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of-
No.124A, Pudukottai Road, Income Tax,
Aranthangi, Central Circle-2,
Pudukkottai. Trichy.
[PAN: ACYPA 3042 Q]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.154/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12
The Asst. Commissioner of- Vs. Shri Chidambaram-
Income Tax, Arumugam,
Central Circle-2, No.124A, Pudukottai Road,
Trichy. Aranthangi, Pudukkottai.
[PAN: ACYPA 3042 Q]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.38/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2014-15
Smt. Kulandaian Sathyakala, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of-
D-102, Gray Shoot Apartments, Income Tax,
No.4, Bishop Garden Extension, Central Circle-2,
R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028. Trichy.
[PAN: BDYPS 4398 R]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.164/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2014-15
The Asst. Commissioner of- Vs. Smt. Kulandaian Sathyakala,
Income Tax, D-102, Gray Shoot
Central Circle-2, Apartments,
Trichy. No.4, Bishop Garden
Extension,
R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028.
[PAN: BDYPS 4398 R]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
ITA Nos.35-38/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.40-43/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.154-156/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.158-159/Chny/2018
ITA Nos.164-168/Chny/2018
:- 5 -:
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.156/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12
The Asst. Commissioner of- Vs. Shri A.Anbu Kannan,
Income Tax, No.19, Kasthuribai Road,
Central Circle-2, Kumbakonam-612 001.
Trichy.
[PAN: AGPPA 7635 L]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.159/Chny/2018
नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12
The Asst. Commissioner of- Vs. Smt. Marimuthu Vijayarani,
Income Tax, No.24/29, West Main Street,
Central Circle-2, Pudukkottai-622 001.
Trichy.
[PAN: AADPV 6328 B]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
Assessee By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv.
Department By : Mr.Sridhar Dora, JCIT
सुनवाई क* तार ख/Date of Hearing : 31.01.2019
घोषणा क* तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2019
आदे श / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
ITA No.35/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the assessee & ITA
No.155/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA No.250/16-17 dated 16.10.2017, in the case of Shri Subramanian Kulanthyaian, for the AY 2014-15.
ITA Nos.35-38/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.40-43/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.154-156/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.158-159/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.164-168/Chny/2018 :- 6 -:
2. ITA No.36/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the assessee & ITA Nos.165 & 166/Chny/2018 are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA No.239/16-17 & in ITA No.240/16-17 dated 16.10.2017, in the case of Shri A. Rameshkumar, for the AYs 2011-12 & 2014-15 respectively.
3. ITA No.40/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA No.242/16-17 dated 16.10.2017, in the case of Shri Ramasamy Subramanian, for the AY 2014-15.
4. ITA No.41/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the assessee & ITA No.158/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA No.243/16-17 dated 16.10.2017, in the case of Shri Avathan Marimuthu, for the AY 2011-12.
5. ITA No.42/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the assessee & ITA No.168/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA No.246/16-17 dated 16.10.2017, in the case of Smt. Maheswari, for the AY 2011-12.
ITA Nos.35-38/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.40-43/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.154-156/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.158-159/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.164-168/Chny/2018 :- 7 -:
6. ITA No.43/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the assessee & ITA No.167/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA No.248/16-17 dated 16.10.2017, in the case of Shri Avathan Chettiar Sureshkumar, for the AY 2011-12.
7. ITA No.37/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the assessee & ITA No.154/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA No.241/16-17 dated 16.10.2017, in the case of Shri Chidambaram Arumugam, for the AY 2011-12.
8. ITA No.38/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the assessee & ITA No.164/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA No.249/16-17 dated 16.10.2017, in the case of Smt. Kulandian Sathyakala, for the AY 2014-15.
9. ITA No.156/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA No.237/16-17 dated 16.10.2017, in the case of Shri A.Anbu Kannan, for the AY 2011-12.
ITA Nos.35-38/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.40-43/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.154-156/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.158-159/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.164-168/Chny/2018 :- 8 -:
10. ITA No.159/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA No.244/16-17 dated 16.10.2017, in the case of Smt. Marimuthu Vijayarani, for the AY 2011-12.
11. Shri Sridhar Dora, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate, represented on behalf of the assessees.
12. It was submitted by the Ld.DR that all the assessees are individuals belonging to a group of persons hailing from the same place who are all related either by blood or by marriage and engaged in money lending business on a large scale on cash basis. It was a submission that in the course of assessment, it was noticed that the assessees are engaged in money lending and brokerage in money lending. The assessees were not maintaining any regular books of accounts on day to day basis. The assessees claim that they have been making advances for a short period of time and the assessees do not made advances to the same person during the pendency of earlier advance. It was a submission that the assessees had claimed that the collection advances made are the sources for the deposits of the bank accounts. It was a submission that the assessment was completed u/s.144 and from the bank statements gathered by the department and furnished by the assessees, it was noticed that the assessees made substantial deposits in the bank ITA Nos.35-38/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.40-43/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.154-156/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.158-159/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.164-168/Chny/2018 :- 9 -:
accounts. The AO had in the course of the assessment treated all the cash deposits in the bank accounts as the income of the assessees. Consequently, the cash deposits in the bank accounts are treated as unexplained and treated as income of the assessees for the relevant AYs. It was a submission that on appeal, Ld.CIT(A) had held that the entire cash deposits in the bank accounts cannot be treated as income of the assessees and had held that the only peak credits were liable to be assessed. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be reversed.
13. In reply, Ld.AR submitted that the addition as made by the AO by treating the entire cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessees as undisclosed income of the assessees, was erroneous. It was also a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the explanation of the assessees and ought not to have confirmed the addition in respect of the peak credits in the bank accounts of the assessees. The alternate prayer of the assessees were that the issues in these appeal were squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of one Shri A. Anbukkannan in ITA No.1731/Mds/2014 and ITA No.1871/Mds/2014 for the AYs 2010-11 vide order dated 05.04.2014, wherein, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had held as follows:
7. Now before us, ld. Departmental Representative strongly assailing the order of the ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that existence of money lending business was proved by the ld. Assessing Officer and accepted by the assessee. According to him, aggregate deposits Rs.3,67,75,800/- with the bank account represented investment of the ITA Nos.35-38/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.40-43/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.154-156/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.158-159/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.164-168/Chny/2018 :- 10 -:
assessee in his money lending business and no explanation was offered for the source thereof. According to him, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had applied the peak credit principle when assessee could not show that the deposits were made out of earlier withdrawals.
8. Contra, and in support of its own appeal, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) though he correctly applied peak credit principle erred in sustaining additions to the extent of Rs.21,80,646/-. As per ld. Authorised Representative presumption that assessee had earned agency commission of Rs.3,67,758/-
was incorrect.
9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed by the Revenue that assessee had both cash deposits as well as cash withdrawals in his bank account with Axis Bank accounts with Pudukkottai and T. Nagar Branch. Though ld. Assessing Officer had listed out the major transactions at paragraph 4 of the assessment order, a date wise analysis of the bank accounts were not done. Assessee can always say that cash deposits in the bank account had come out of an earlier cash withdrawal as long as the time interval between the withdrawals and deposits are not so significantly substantial to disbelieve the source. Whether the assessee was carrying on any money lending business, has no relevance when an assessment is made considering the amounts deposited in the bank accounts. However, in our opinion cash deposits alone cannot be the subject of an addition ignoring the cash withdrawals. Hence, finding of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that peak credit of Rs.18,12,888/- alone could have been considered for the addition cannot be faulted. In so far as transactions other than cash are concerned, it may be true that assessee was earning commission from money lending. However, the finding of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that assessee was earning 1% commission of the deposits in the bank account was only a surmise. Even if there were some commission earnings it gets subsumed in the peak credit of Rs.18,12,888/- considered for addition. The further addition of Rs.3,67,758/- was not justified in the fact and circumstances of the case, such addition stands deleted.
14. We have considered the rival submissions.
15. A perusal of the Assessment Order shows that the AO treated the entire cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessees as unexplained income of the assessees. It is also an accepted fact by the AO that the assessees have been doing money lending business in the earlier years also. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that the Ld.CIT(A) in Para No.8 of his order has examined the issue of the money lending business of the assessese and issue of circulating capital. After examining ITA Nos.35-38/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.40-43/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.154-156/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.158-159/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.164-168/Chny/2018 :- 11 -:
the same, the Ld.CIT(A) has come to a categorical finding that there cannot be any reason for taxing gross amount of cash deposits in the bank accounts. He has also considered the judicial decisions and has given a finding that judicial decisions have not supported bringing the gross amounts for taxation when there have been both deposits and withdrawals in the bank accounts at regular intervals. The Ld.CIT(A) also considered the fact that peak credits in such situation renders the best method of addition. Though in the calculation of the peak credit, the Ld.CIT(A) has given the benefit of set off of the opening cash balance and opening advance, when peak credit is being considered, and when the business is the same as carried on in the earlier years, it is the peak credit of the earlier year that is liable to be considered as available for explaining the peak credit of the current year. However, we are not directing this method to be applied as the assessees have not raised any ground for this claim, and also because such a claim would require verification of facts and consequently such a ground cannot be raised as a fresh or additional ground at this stage. The Revenue has not been able to point out any error in the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Further, under similar circumstances in respect of another member of the same group being Shri A. Anbukkannan, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has also upheld the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) in adopting the peak credits. This being so, we do not find any error in the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) which calls for any interference.
ITA Nos.35-38/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.40-43/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.154-156/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.158-159/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.164-168/Chny/2018 :- 12 -:
16. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as also appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced on the 13th day of March, 2019, in Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (जॉज माथन)
(A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (GEORGE MATHAN)
लेखा सद!य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद!य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai,
0दनांक/Dated: 13th March, 2019.
TLN
आदे श क* ' त1ल2प अ3े2षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant 4. आयकर आय4
ु त/CIT
2. '(यथ&/Respondent 5. 2वभागीय ' त न ध/DR
3. आयकर आय4
ु त (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड फाईल/GF