L.Mohana Krishnan, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1011/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8094 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K PARASHIVAIH IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , #'$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 1011/MDS/2014 # % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-2008 L. MOHANA KRISHNAN, OLD NO.35, NEW NO.28, THOMAS NAGAR, LITTLE MOUNT, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI 600 015. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD IV(2), CHENNAI 600 034 [PAN AGIPM 0599G ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '( ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE +,'( ) * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. K. PARASHIVAIH, IRS, CIT ! ) - / DATE OF HEARING : 20-01-2016 ./& ) - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-02-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V, CHEN NAI IN ITA NO.57/12-13(A)-V, DT 27.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 ITA NO.1011/MDS/2014. :- 2 -: PASSED U/S.144 AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONLY ONE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GOING IN TO MERITS AND ALSO HEALTH CONDITION OF THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT ON RECORD. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION AND HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 10.04.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF <98,920/-. RE TURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY TH ROUGH CASS. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED AND THE SAME WAS RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AND ANO THER NOTICE U/S.142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 13.11.2009, WAS ALSO RETU RNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES STATING NO SUCH PERSON. TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DEPUTED, THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX DEPART MENT TO SERVE THE NOTICE, SINCE THE DOOR WAS LOCKED THE NOTICE WAS SE RVED BY AFFIXTURE AS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE ACT AND MAD E DISALLOWANCE OF 30% OF INDIRECT EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND FURTHER, AS PER AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF <68,360/- AS INTEREST AND MADE CASH DEPOSITS I N CENTURION BANK OF ITA NO.1011/MDS/2014. :- 3 -: PUNJAB LTD, BESANT NAGAR BRANCH, CHENNAI <29,00,000 /-. SINCE THERE ARE NO EXPLANATIONS AVAILABLE PRIME FACIE THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF <29,89,349/- AND RAISED DEMAND. AG GRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFER RED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TH E ASSESSEE RAISED GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE AND ALSO TREATING THE CASH DEPOSITS OF <29,00,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PUT ON RECORD, THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM SEVERE PA RALYSIS FOR A LONGER PERIOD. HE IS AN ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION AND THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED INDIRECT EXPENSES WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND T HE CASH DEPOSITS OF <29,00,000/- AS PER AIR INFORMATION PERTAINS TO SAL E OF LAND AT THIRUPORUR AND DUE TO HEALTH CONDITIONS HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH AVAILABLE INFORMATION. FURTHER A SSESSEE WAS MENTALLY PREPARED TO COMPUTE CAPITAL GAINS AND OFFERED TO PA Y TAX DEMAND. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEES LD. AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED AND FILED EXPLANATIONS REFE RRED ABOVE AND UNDERTAKE TO FILE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPEARAN CE OF LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HE ARING FOR MORE ITA NO.1011/MDS/2014. :- 4 -: THAN THREE TIMES AND ONLY ONCE LD. AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE APPEARED AND ASKED TO PRODUCE DETAILS WITH EVIDENCES. ON TH E SAID DATE OF HEARING, THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE AND RESPONSE. TH E LD.CIT(A) FOUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL AND NONE APPEARED BY APPLYING RATIO OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA ) PVT. LTD VS. CIT 38 ITD 320 AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HALKAR VS. CWT 223 1TR 480 (MP) DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITER ATED HIS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DELAY IN FILING THE INFORMATION WAS DUE TO HEAL TH PROBLEMS AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PARALYSIS OF LIMBS AND WAS BED RIDDEN OF POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED THE SU PPORTING EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THE DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS AND ALS O PROFESSIONAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE DUE TO HEALTH LI MITATION COULD NOT GIVE INFORMATION TO THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT IVE FOR FURNISHING BEFORE THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL ONLY ON THE BASI S OF OBSERVATIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOR NON PROSECUTING OF AP PEAL. FURTHER, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PLEADED THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN LIAISON ITA NO.1011/MDS/2014. :- 5 -: BUSINESS FOR REAL ESTATE AND INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE OF LIAISON WORKS HE USED TO COLLECT MONEY ON BEHALF OF LAND OWNERS AND PAY TO SELLERS AND DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. DUE TO HEALTH ISSUES, BO OKS OF ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE PREPARED AS THERE ARE NO MAJOR DEALS A ND INCOME RECEIVED WAS MEAGER. HENCE DEPOSITS COULD NOT BE E XPLAINED WITH MATERIAL EVIDENCES AND PLEADED THE TRIBUNAL TO DECI DE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 6. . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO COOPERATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ANY INFORMATION FILED SHOULD BE VERIFIED AND THEREFORE PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PROFESSIONAL AND DUE TO HIS HEALTH HAZARDS WAS NOT ABLE TO CONCE NTRATE ON THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T WELL FOR A LONGTIME DUE TO BLOOD CLOT IN THE BRAIN WHICH LED TO PARALYSIS OF LIMBS AND WAS BED RIDDEN. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CASE WHICH COULD NOT BE IMMEDIATELY FILED. DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES OF ILL HEALTH AND NON A PPEARANCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE ACT AS THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE FOR THE A SSESSMENT. THE LD. ITA NO.1011/MDS/2014. :- 6 -: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER GIVING A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTIO N. IT IS APPARENT FROM FACTS, CONSIDERING THE HEALTH CONDITION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE ISSUES WERE NOT DEALT ON MERITS AND HAS TO BE EXAMINED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND REMIT THE FILE TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE ISSUES AND SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ON ME RITS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBR UARY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ' ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI 3 / DATED:03.2.2016 KV 4 ) +#-56 76&- / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 3. ! 8- () / CIT(A) 5. 6 9: +#-# / DR 2. +,'( / RESPONDENT 4. ! 8- / CIT 6. :;% < / GF