, , IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI, 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, 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 ( /Appellant) ( /Respondent) /Appellant by : Sh. R. Sankaranarayanan, ACA /Respondent by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT /Date of Hearing : 25.07.2016 /Date of Pronouncement : 15.09.2016 /ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of assessee is directed against order of 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, Ld. representative for assessee, submitted that there was search in premises of 2 I.T.(SS) A. No.1/Mds/16 assessee on 06.09.2002. In first round of litigation, this Tribunal, by order dated 17.04.2008, remanded back matter to file of Assessing Officer to verify unexplained cash of `15,60,000/- which was added under Section 69A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to Ld. representative, assessee is engaged in business of real estate and he is also doing business as proprietor in name and style of Shri Mahalakshmi Motors. assessee is also one of partners in Mahalakshmi Enterprise. During course of search operation, cash of `15,60,000/- was found in locker No.299 of ICICI Bank, R.H. Branch, Chennai. assessee also withdrew money from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank and same was kept in locker. 3. Ld. representative for assessee further submitted that there was dispute in family, therefore, assessee withdrew money from bank account and kept in locker. assessee s son and his son-in-law are making claim against money available in bank, therefore, in order to safeguard money, which was available in Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank, was kept in bank locker of ICICI Bank for safe custody. 3 I.T.(SS) A. No.1/Mds/16 On query from Bench, when bank account stands in name of assessee, how assessee s son and son-in-law can take money without knowledge of assessee? Ld. representative could not offer any proper explanation. According to Ld. representative, since money withdrew from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank was kept in locker of ICICI Bank, there cannot be any addition for block period. 4. On contrary, Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that during course of search operation, Revenue authorities found `15,60,000/- cash in locker of ICICI Bank which stands in name of assessee. assessee explained before Assessing Officer that money was withdrawn from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank. According to Ld. D.R., cash inventory discloses bank from which cash was withdrawn. cash bundle does not refer to either Karur Vysya Bank or Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Therefore, it is obvious that money was not withdrawn either from Karur Vysya Bank or Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Therefore, according to Ld. D.R., CIT(Appeals) found that claim of assessee that 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 Ld. D.R., even if there was any dispute in family, as contended by Ld. representative for assessee, when bank account stands in individual name of assessee, no one including assessee s son and son-in-law, can draw money from bank. Therefore, claim of assessee that his son and son-in-law was taken money from bank account is not justified. According to Ld. D.R., money kept in bank locker is nothing but unaccounted money, therefore, CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed addition made by Assessing Officer. 4. We have considered rival submissions on either side and perused relevant material available on record. Admittedly, there was search operation in premises of assessee and Revenue authorities found `15,60,000/- in locker of ICICI Bank which stands in name of assessee. assessee claimed before Assessing Officer that there was dispute in family between him and his son and son-in-law and, his son and son-in- law were making claim over money kept in bank account. Therefore, to safeguard money, assessee claimed that 5 I.T.(SS) A. No.1/Mds/16 same was withdrawn from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank and kept in bank locker of ICICI Bank, RH Branch. As rightly contended by Ld. Departmental Representative, when bank account stands in individual name of assessee, it is not known how assessee s son or son-in-law could draw money without knowledge of assessee. This Tribunal is of considered opinion that claim of assessee that for purpose of safe custody, it was kept in bank locker of ICICI Bank is not convincing. As rightly observed by CIT(Appeals), inventory found in cash bundle does not refer to Karur Vysya Bank or Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Therefore, obviously, money was withdrawn from some other bank. When money was received by bankers, they will put their sticker or label to indicate branch name. In case before us, no reference about Karur Vysya Bank or Lakshmi Vilas Bank was found in cash bundle. Therefore, claim of assessee that money withdrawn from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank was kept in locker of ICICI Bank is not substantiated. This Tribunal is of considered opinion that money found in ICICI Bank locker is not money said to be withdrawn from Karur Vysya Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Therefore, in absence of any other material, 6 I.T.(SS) A. No.1/Mds/16 CIT(Appeals) has rightly found that this is unaccounted money of assessee. In this factual situation, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with order of lower authority and accordingly same is confirmed. 5. In result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 15th September, 2016 at Chennai. sd/- sd/- (D.S. Sunder Singh) (N.R.S. Ganesan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Chennai, th Dated, 15 September, 2016. Kri. Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A)-10, Chennai-34 4. CIT-7, Chennai 5. DR 6. GF. VVR Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Business Circle XIV, Chennai