,, IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI ,, BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2916/CHNY/2018 Assessment year : 2008-2009. S. Sathiyamoorthy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/o. late G. Shanmugam, Salary Ward 1(4) Plot No.11, Balaji Nagar, Chennai 600 034. 89, Veppampattu, Chennai 602024. [PAN AUKPS8372D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. L. Ravichandran, Adv. & Respondent by : Shri. M.S Nethrapal, JCIT. Date of Hearing : 19-08-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28-08-2019 ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is appeal filed by Assessee directed against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai ( CIT(A) for short) dated 31.08.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-2009. :- 2 -: ITA No. 2916/2018 2. Assessee raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Order of CT (A)-12 dated 31-08-2018 u/s 250(6) allowing appeal partially instead of full is contrary to law and facts of case. 2. Order of CIT (A)-12 ignores to consider impossibility of production of evidence of salaried assessee who always not keep his records as evidence. 3. Order of CIT(A)-12 ought to consider inordinate delay and latches in disposal of appeal proceedings which caused mental agony to assessee. 4. Order of CIT(A)-12 mechanically appreciated evidence as that of organized corporate bodies. 5. Order of CIT(A)-1 2 was arbitrary and against provision of law. 6. Order of CIT(A)-12 by partly allowed appeal was against natural justice In circumstances, its therefore prayed that Hon ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal may please to order for full waiver of tax by set-aside Order of CIT(A)12 dated 31-08-2018 and thus render justice . 3. brief facts of case are as under: appellant is individual deriving income under head salary. return of income for assessment year 2008-09 was filed on 25.07.2008 disclosing total income of H85,980/-. Against said return of income, assessment was completed by Income Tax Officer, Salary Ward I(4), Chennai (hereinafter referred as Assessing :- 3 -: ITA No. 2916/2018 Officer ) vide order dated 29.12.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ) at total income of H10,65,980/-. While doing so, Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account of H9,80,000/. 4. Being aggrieved by above addition, appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order granted relief by restricting addition to H4,58,500/- as against addition of H9,80,000/- considering evidence of loan from mother and confirmation of loan creditors etc., 5. Being aggrieved by that part of order of ld. CIT(A) giving partial relief, assessee is in appeal before us. It is submitted that assessee had borrowed money from following persons in order to meet cost of purchase of land. Sl.No Name Amount 1 R. Suresh 19,500 2 T. Isreal 15,000 3 P. Chandra Babu 18,000 4 L. Deenadayalan 17,500 5 V. Devakumar 19,000 6 P. Sivakumar 18,500 7 S.Dhakshnamoorthy 19,000 8 S Jayasudha 17,000 9 D. Ravikumar 19,000 10 R . Ramani 19,500 :- 4 -: ITA No. 2916/2018 11 K. Durairaj 17,500 C/o. 1,99,500 12 S. Sevlakumar 1,99,500 C/o. 16,000 13 K.Shanmugasundar 18,500 14 V. Praveen 18,500 15 M. Palanisamy 18,500 16 D. Senthil 17,000 17 D. Muniswamy 17,000 (LIC Agent) 18 B. Sumathi 18,000 Grand Total 3,23,000 Since transaction of purchase of land was not materialized, loans were repaid and lower authorities ought not to have rejected explanation rendered by assessee. 6. On other hand, ld. Sr. Departmental Representative placed reliance on orders of lower authorities 7. We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. In support of cash deposits made in bank account, assessee offered explanation. Assessing Officer simply rejected explanation without giving any cogent reason. explanation given by assessee is plausible explanation and there is no reason to disbelieve explanation and cash loans are too meager to :- 5 -: ITA No. 2916/2018 doubt creditworthiness of lenders. In circumstances, we do not find any reason to confirm addition. Accordingly, we allow appeal filed by assessee. 8. In result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 28th day of August, 2019, at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai Dated: 28th August, 2019. KV & 1 2 3 2 Copy to: 1. Appellant 3. 4 CIT(A) 5. 2 & 9 DR 2. &Respondent 4. 4 CIT 6. GF S. Sathiyamoorthy v. Income-tax Officer, Salary Ward- 1(4), Chennai