K.Thiagarajan, Madurai V. DCIT, Madurai

ITA 1083/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5941 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: R SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Salary income; Revised return
• Section: 14A; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! ' ! # . $ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 1083/MDS/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) SHRI K. THIAGARAJAN, THIAGARAJAR MILLS PREMISES, KAPPALUR, MADURAI 625 008. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, MADURAI PAN : AEAPT3548N ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SMT. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 12.09.2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.10.2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI DATED 29.03.2017 IN C.NO.114/04/PCIT- 2/MDU/2016-17 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 PASSE D U/S.263 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRONEOUSLY 2 ITA NO. 1083/MDS/201 7 INVOKED POWERS U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE LD.AO TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER EXAMINING THE APPLICABIL ITY OF SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D OF THE RULES. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A AN INDIVIDUAL EARNING INCOME FROM SALARY, INTEREST ETC ., FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON 25.07. 2012 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.55,12,911/-. SUBSEQUE NTLY HE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 19.07.20 13 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.59,23,510/-. THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND FINALLY ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT O N 25.02.2015. 4. THEREAFTER THE LD.PCIT(A) INVOKED HIS POWERS U/S .263 OF THE ACT AND REMITTED BACK THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF LD.AO IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECT ION 14A AND RULE 8D OF THE RULES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BE CAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS FOR EARNING EXEMPT IN COME AND 3 ITA NO. 1083/MDS/201 7 THE LD.AO HAD NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN HIS ORDER OR MADE ANY EXAMINATION ON THAT REGARD. 5. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD.AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT HAD EX AMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND SINCE SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D O F THE RULES WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DECI DED NOT TO INVOKE THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. I T WAS THEREFORE ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.PCIT INVOKING THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND THEREFORE R EQUESTED THE SAME TO BE QUASHED. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND VE HEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.PCIT AND P LEADED FOR SUSTAINING HIS ORDER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE US NEITHE R THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE COULD PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE T O SUGGEST THAT THE LD.AO HAD EXAMINED THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO TH E APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D OF THE RULES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143( 3) OF THE ACT. FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO I T IS APPARENT 4 ITA NO. 1083/MDS/201 7 THAT THE LD.AO HAD NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE WITH RES PECT TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D OF THE RUL ES AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD.PCIT IN HIS ORDER. IN THIS SITUATIO N, WE FIND THE ORDER OF THE LD.PCIT INVOKING HIS POWERS U/S.263 OF THE A CT AND FURTHER DIRECTING THE LD.AO TO EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D OF THE RULES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E TO BE APPROPRIATE. THEREFORE WE HEREBY SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LD.PCIT PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 19 TH OCTOBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' ! # . $ ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ' #$ /JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %' /CHENNAI, &# /DATED 19 TH OCTOBER, 2017 RSR # () *) /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. - ( )/CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. )./ 0 /DR 6. /1 /GF