Tca/212/2017 Of Shri Jayanthilal Bansilal Jain v. The Income Tax Officer

Shri. Jayanthilal Bansilal Jain... Appellant The Income Tax OfficerNon – Corporate Ward -4 (3)Chennai – 6....Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai Bench 'A', dated 26.10.2016 passed in ITA No. 566/Mds/2016 for the Assessment year 2010-2011. against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5 dated 22.12.2015 in ITA.No.381/CIT(A)-5/13-14against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Business ward VI(3)dated 31.03.2013 made in PAN.NO. For Appellant : Mr.Ramanakumar 1.This is an appeal preferred under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Via this appeal,challenge is laid to the judgment and order dated 26.10.2016,passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'theTribunal') in respect of the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-2011. 2.Briefly, the facts, which are required to be noticed, inorder to adjudicate upon the appeal, are as follows: 2.1.During the relevant AY, in the course of assessmentproceedings, it was found that two unexplained deposits had beencredited in the account of the assessee. The enquiry made withthe assessee revealed that a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- stood creditedin the account of the assessee maintained with Vijaya Bank,while a sum of Rs.42,72,000/- stood credited in the account of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessee maintained with Karur Vysya Bank. In sum, an amounttotalling to Rs.47,13,000/- was found credited in the two bankaccounts, qua which explanation was sought. Pertinently, in sofar as the sum credited in the account maintained with KarurVysya Bank was concerned, it was not disclosed in the books ofaccounts of the assessee. 2.2.In response to the queries raised, the assesseeattempted to convey that the amounts found credited in the twobank accounts maintained by him, were unaccounted sales. 2.3.In order to buttress the said explanation, the assesseealso sought to draw attention to the Demand Drafts issued by himby accessing the said accounts, to demonstrate, that the saidamounts had been paid towards unaccounted purchases. 2.4.Based on the purported explanation, the assesseecontended before the Tribunal that what could be added back asreceipts under Section 68 of the Act was only the gross profitand not the receipts simpliciter. 2.5.The Tribunal, however, rejected the plea advanced by theassessee on account of the fact that he had failed to produceany evidence, which would prove that deposits were made onaccount of unaccounted sales as contended by him. As per thefacts recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, theassessee produced some cash memos, which did not contain thenecessary details leading to a situation that genuineness of thetransaction could not be verified. In particular, the cashmemos contained no address or date. Furthermore, they were notsupported by LR and/or RR numbers. Moreover, some of the memosproduced, according to the Tribunal, were not even cash memos,but were approval slips, which were in the nature of quotations. 2.6.In so far as unaccounted purchases were concerned, asindicated above, the assessee had tried to contend that moneyswere paid qua the purported purchases via Demand Drafts. TheTribunal records that the details of persons, in whose favourthe Demand Drafts were purchased, were not tendered. TheTribunal notes, therefore, that there is no evidence ofsuppliers nor the payments could be verified from the sketchydetails furnished by the assessee. It is, in this background,that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the natureand source of deposits made in the bank accounts could not beproved, the entire receipts had to be treated as income. 3.Mr.Ramana Kumar, who appears in support of the appeal,maintained that the receipts were unaccounted sales andtherefore, only the element of gross profit could be added asincome under Section 68 of the Act. 3.Mr.Ramana Kumar, who appears in support of the appeal,maintained that the receipts were unaccounted sales andtherefore, only the element of gross profit could be added asincome under Section 68 of the Act. 4.According to us, in view of the findings of fact returnedby the Tribunal, qua which nothing has been shown to us todemonstrate that they were erroneous, no interference is calledfor with the impugned judgment and order. 5.Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed.Consequently, C.M.P.No.5787 of 2017 is also dismissed. Thereshall, however, be no order as to costs. -s/d-Assistant Registrar(CSIV)True CopySub-Assistant Registrarsra/aadTo1.The Income Tax OfficerNon – Corporate Ward -4 (3)Chennai – 6.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5Chennai+1 cc to Mr.B.Ramanakumar Advocate sr 20800+1 cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar Advocate sr 19920T.C. (A) No.212 of 2017 kgk(co)aa19/04/2017