TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signed by the assessee out of force and immediately thereafter on 27.4.1985 the assessee stated before the authorities that the seized money represents the deposits received from Rajarathinam, a Srilankan. Sri Rajarathinam on 8.4.85 has field before the assessing officer an intimate that he had migrated from Sri Lanka to India and he has also stated that he brought a sum of ₹ 7,95,000/- out of his earnings in Sri Lanka. The ITO has acknowledged this declaration on 9.4.85. Amounts as seized from the appellant was lent by Shri S.S. Arumugam @ Rajarathinam which is accepted by the ITAT and so there is no reason to consider the said amount as sale proceeds of contraband goods. At this stage, the learned AR for Revenue doubted the authenticity of ITAT orders. We find that the appellant filed photocopy of ITAT orders in their appeal before the Tribunal. There is no need to say that the Revenue is always at liberty to verify the authenticity of the ITAT orders - Impugned order set aside - Decided in favour of assesse. - C/107/1989 - Final Order No.40855/2014 - Dated:- 21-10-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R. Periasami, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. Palanikumar, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant amongst others. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant took a stand before the adjudicating authority that the seized Indian currency was given by Shri S.S. Arumugam, who gave him as loan by executing a promissory note. He submits that Income Tax authorities initiated proceedings against the appellant. The matter went up to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (ITAT) Madras. By order dated 31.12.1996, in I.T.A. No. 4329/MDS/89 for Assessment Year 1986 - 87 (Shri Rajamani Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-I, Madurai), the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant. The Tribunal held that Shri S.S. Arumugam @ Rajarathinam has lend the amount of ₹ 5,50,000/- to the appellant. He also submits that the assessing officer have levied penalty of ₹ 3,83,183/- which was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who has set aside the penalty. The Income Tax Department challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before the ITAT. By order dated 25.7.2003, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- in Indian currency in his possession. When it was stated before the customs authority that the money represented sale proceeds of contraband gold biscuits, the entire currency was seized. Later on, on 27.4.1985, the assessee sent a representation to the Collector, Central Excise stating that one Sri S.S. Arumugam alias Rajarathinam of Sri Lanka who was residing at Melur was known to him, that the said Rajarathinam on the assessees request gave ₹ 5,50,000/- on 22.4.1985 as a loan and that this amount was wrongly seized by the customs authorities. Insofar as the liability towards income tax in respect of this amount is concerned, sworn statements were recorded from the assessee as well as Rajarathinam. Sri Rajarathinam stated that he had given ₹ 1,90,000/- to M/s. Sujatha Jewellers and ₹ 5,50,000/- to the assessee as a deposit. The Department asked Rajarathinam to explain the source for the sum of ₹ 5,50,000/-. It was stated by him that he brought jewellery from Sri Lanka in the year 1983 because of ethnic conflict and sold the jewellery and realized more than ₹ 7 lakhs. When he was asked to produce the receipt for sale of jewellery or the address o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or documentary evidence in the shape of transfer through banks, hundis, etc. in support of remittance from that country need not be insisted upon. These instructions are contained in Circular No. 1527 dated 12.9.1963. In our view, Sri Rajarathina is a bonafide migrant from Sri Lanka and he satisfies all the conditions laid down in the Board s circular, stated above and the department should have accepted the assessees explanation with regard to the cash credit. As regards the capacity of the creditor, Sri Rajarathinam has produced the details of the business that was done by him in Sri Lanka and a certificate of total income assessed in Sri Lanka duly certified by Chartered Accountant, Sri S. Rajadurai and Co. Colombo is also on record. The creditor has also filed the copies of the profit and loss account for the year ended 31.3.1982 in the ase of K.V.R. Geetha Jewellery, Colombo - 4 in which he was a partner. All these clearly show that the creditor had sufficient means which could have enabled him to deposit a sum of ₹ 5,50,000/- with the assessee. There is no contradiction as to the fact that Sri Rajarathinam lent the amount of ₹ 5,50,000/- to the assessee. May be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and after hearing the assessee and considering the explanation given by the assessee has levied the penalty of ₹ 3,00,183/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. Aggrieved by this penalty, the assessees filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the arguments and taking into account the opinion of the assessing officer came to the conclusion that the penalty is not leviable against the assessee as the disputed amount of ₹ 5,50,000/- is not a concealed income. Accordingly, he cancelled the penalty levied by the assessing officer. Having been aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been filed by the respondent. 6. On careful consideration of the sequence of the events as well as the chronology of the orders of the CIT(A) and this Tribunal in the quantum proceedings as well as in the penalty proceedings, we find that in view of the deletion of the very addition basing on which the present penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer, by the Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the assessee, we find that the penalty levied is not sustained under law and requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
