A.radhakrishnan v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Race Cource, Coimbatore-18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS T.C.A.No.332 OF 2016 A.Radhakrishnan...Appellant -vs- 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Race Cource, Coimbatore-18. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward I (2), Pollachi....Respondents Appeal against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal "B" Bench, Chennai, dated 29.01.2016, passed in ITANo.1816/Mds/2013 against the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals)-II, Coimabtore dated 20.6.2013 and made inI.T.Appeal No.141/10-11 for the Assessment year 2008-09 andagainst the order of Income tax Officer Ward I(2), dated30.11.2010 and made in PAN.AJAPR 7599Q for the Assessment year2008-09. For appellant : Mr.P.MuthukrishnanJUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by Nooty.RamamohanaRao, J.) This Appeal is preferred by the assessee under Section260-A of the Income Tax Act, calling in question the correctnessof the order passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B"Bench, Chennai, in ITA No.1816/Mds/2013, on 29[th] January,2016. 2. The appellant/assessee challenged the order passedby the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) – II, Coimbatore,for the assessment year 2008-2009, before the Income-TaxAppellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Chennai. The Assessing Officerhas added certain cash deposits made by the assessee in his bankaccount, maintained with Indian Bank, for the purpose of income,running to a little more than Rs.11.69 lakhs. This amount,according to the Assessing Officer, has not been brought on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ record and, consequently, escaped assessment. As a result ofthis, the Assessing Officer has provided an opportunity to theassessee to explain the sources for the above deposits, runningto over Rs.11.69 lakhs. 3. It would be appropriate to notice that a huge sum ofRs.7,38,000/- had been deposided by the assessee on 01[st]June,2007, and, on 09.11.2007, he made another deposit ofRs.3,50,000/-. Since, on a single day, such huge amounts weredeposited with the bank account, the Assessing Officer had alegitimate feeling that the said income was not reflected andaccounted for properly, in the records. Though the assesseetried to explain the transactions, the Assessing Officer was notsatisified and, hence, he passed an order of assessment. Againstthe said order, the appeal was preferred before the CIT (A). 4. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee could notexplain as to wherefrom he could secure or generate so much ofmoney to make the said deposits. It is also not out ofplace to mention here that the assessee had admitted his incomeas Rs.1,14,500/-, besides reporting the agricultural income, ina sum of Rs.4,90,000/. With only these sources of income, thedeposits made into the bank account of substantial amountsremain wholly unexplained. That is the reason why, the Tribunalhas also dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by theAssessing Authority, treating the income, which got reflectedinto the deposits made into the account of the assessee, asunaccounted. 5. Before us, Sri P.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel forthe appellant, has made an attempt to demonstrate that theappellant has explained the sources for the deposits, but,nontheless, both the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal haveerred in not taking the same into account or consideration. 6. We are of the considered opinion, that in a case ofthis nature, what matters is, not a mere or mechanical way ofoffering the explanation, but, what really matters is, thequality of the said explanation. It must form a ring of trutharound it, so as to enable either the Assessing Authority or theAppellate Tribunal to take the same into consideration andbestow their attention thereon seriously. For the sheer lack ofquality in the explanatioin offered by the appellant even beforeus, we do not find any merit in this appeal and, it is, 6. We are of the considered opinion, that in a case ofthis nature, what matters is, not a mere or mechanical way ofoffering the explanation, but, what really matters is, thequality of the said explanation. It must form a ring of trutharound it, so as to enable either the Assessing Authority or theAppellate Tribunal to take the same into consideration andbestow their attention thereon seriously. For the sheer lack ofquality in the explanatioin offered by the appellant even beforeus, we do not find any merit in this appeal and, it is, accordingly, dismissed, at the admission stage itself. Nocosts. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.7327 of 2016 alsostands dismissed.dixit s/d- Assistant Registrar(CO) True Copy To Sub-Assistant Registrar 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Race Cource, Coimbatore-18. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I (2), Pollachi.3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B'' Bench, Chennai.pa(co)prk24/5T.C.A.No.332 OF 2016