P.Kumar, CHENNAI V. ITO, Villupuram

ITA 1013/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9757 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BALASUBRAMANIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1013/MDS/2015 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI P. KUMAR, C/O M/S SUBBARAYA AIYAR PADMANABHAN & RAMAMANI ADVOCATES, NEW NO.114 (OLD NO.248), ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014. PAN : AHVPK 4326 K V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I, VILLUPURAM. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.1014/MDS/2015 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI V. ARUMUGAM, C/O M/S SUBBARAYA AIYAR PADMANABHAN & RAMAMANI ADVOCATES, NEW NO.114 (OLD NO.248), ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014. PAN : AADPA 2673 E V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I, VILLUPURAM. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANTS BY : SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SH. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, CIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2016 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.04.2016 2 I.T.A. NOS.1013 & 1014/MDS/15 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AR E DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE PRINCIPAL COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUDUCHERRY, DATED 24.02.2015 AND PERTAI N TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEES, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDER ING ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON AVAILABLE RECORD, ESTIMATED T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES. WHILE CONSIDERING THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE WITH REGARD TO SALARY PAID, REPAIR EXPENSES, FREIGHT CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY INVESTIGATED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED EACH AND EVERY FACTS WITH REGARD TO SALARY PAID, RE PAIR EXPENSES, ETC. AND THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEES , THEREFORE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE NON-EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER IS NOT JUSTIF IED IN REVISING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 I.T.A. NOS.1013 & 1014/MDS/15 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, THE LD . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ONLY IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN HEADS OF E XPENSES ACCOUNTED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PRODUCE ANY NEW MATERIALS WHICH WERE CALLED FOR FRO M ANY OUTSIDE PERSONS OR AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO TH E LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY INVESTIGATED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER INVESTIGATION, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE N OT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSION ER HAS RIGHTLY REVISED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 1013/MDS/2015 IS A TRADER IN FOODGRAINS AND THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A . NO.1014/MDS/2015 IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OIL TRADE. BY CONSIDERING THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEES, THE PRIN CIPAL COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT IN BOTH THE CASES, THE PROF IT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEES IS VERY LOW AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY 4 I.T.A. NOS.1013 & 1014/MDS/15 INVESTIGATION OTHER THAN THE HEADS WHICH WERE DISCL OSED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES. THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF REVENUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN BOTH THE CASES, AFTER CON SIDERING THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEES AND THE EXPENDITUR E CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES, FOUND THAT CERTAIN ADDITIONS WOULD NEED TO BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION WI TH REGARD TO SALARIES, REPAIR EXPENDITURE AND FREIGHT CHARGES. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS NO T A CASE OF NON- INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTS FOUND THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEES WERE NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INVESTIGA TED THE CASE PROPERLY. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REVI SING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY ARE SET ASIDE. 5 I.T.A. NOS.1013 & 1014/MDS/15 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 1 ST APRIL, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 1 ST APRIL, 2016. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANTS 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. PRINCIPAL CIT, PUDUCHERRY 5. 68 ,1 /DR 6. 9' : /GF.