A.M.I.Abdul Razack, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1191/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73670 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Documents seized
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . , . . , ! ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1191/MDS./2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) MR.A.M.I.ABDUL RAZACK, NO.5/66-1A,I FLOOR, BUTT LANE, ST. THOMAS MOUNT, CHENNAI 600 016. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD III(I), CHENNAI-34. PAN AISPA 8166 H ( #$ / APPELLANT ) ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHR,ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.MADHAVAN, JCIT, D.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 30.01.2014 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.02.2014 ' / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) DATED 27.03.2013 IN ITA NO.1191/MDS/2013 2 ITA NO.61/10-11(A)-VIII PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ), READ WITH SECTION SEC. 250 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TEN ELABORATE GROUNDS I N HIS APPEAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. A.R DID NOT PRESS GROUN D NOS.3 TO 6 & 8 TO 10 AND THEREFORE, THEY ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. GR OUND NO.1 AND 2 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THEY DO NOT SUR VIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. THUS THE ONLY SURVIVING GROUND IS GR OUND NO.7 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) WHO HAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF 57,18,020/- BY ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS RE CEIVED FROM THE SISTER CONCERNS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETUR N OF INCOME ON 30.09.2008 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,94,080/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.12.2010 WHEREIN T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS 57,18,020/ -, TOWARDS ITA NO.1191/MDS/2013 3 UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THE RE LEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED FRO M SISTER CONCERNS AS BELOW: SISTER CONCERNS AS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE AS COMPARED WITH ASSESSEES BOOKS OBTAINED FROM DRI DIFFERENCE BESTWAYS 27,61,000 25,81,000 1,80,000 BV SYSTEMS 32,98,000 1,04,900 31,93,100 LEENA PARTS & EQUIPMENTS 5,09,100 27,54,020 22,44,920 SUN TRACK 50,000 50,000 UNITECH TRADING 1,00,000 0 1,00,000 THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.57,18,020/- IS TREATED AS UNEX PLAINED CREDIT U/S.68 . 4. ON APPEAL THE LD.CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- AN AMOUNT OF RS.57,18,020/- WAS ADDED AS THE ASSES SEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE SISTER CONCERNS. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE RECONCILIATION OF THESE A MOUNTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ENTRIES PASSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO WA S UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY ITA NO.1191/MDS/2013 4 EVIDENCE/REASONS REQUIRING SUCH ADJUSTMENTS. AFTER EXAMINING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS REPLY TO RE MAND REPORT, THE APPELLANT HAS ARRIVED AT AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,28,180/- AFTER RECONC ILIATION OF PAYMENTS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OBTAINED FROM DRI AND AS SUBMITTE D BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVE WITH MATERIA L EVIDENCE ON RECORD ON WHAT BASIS HE COULD RECONCILE THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS IN THE APPELLANT BOOKS AFTER FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS AS ON 31.03.2008. THE AO I N HIS REMAND REPORT STATED THAT THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN EXAMINED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE S UCH AN ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE THE AMOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHIC H HAVE BEEN CLOSED AS ON 31.03.2008 AND RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BASED UPO N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THIS IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OR REASON REQUIRING SUCH RECONCILIATION. IN THE ABSEN CE OF PROPER RECONCILIATION WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TH E CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS REJECTED AND THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS REJECTED CONFIRMING THE UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF RS.57,18,020/- U/S. 68 OF IT ACT. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R REQUESTED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, SINCE SUFFICIENT RECORDS WERE NOT AVAILABL E WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE LD.AO SINCE THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SEIZED BY THE DRI. LD. A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED T HE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND IT IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BEL OW FOR REFERENCE:- THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE PRESENT DURING THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AUDITORS OF THE APPELLANT FILED T HE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ITA NO.1191/MDS/2013 5 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BASED ON THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SEIZED B Y THE DRI (DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE) AND AS SUCH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORIT Y TO ENABLE HER TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ADDED RS.57,18,020/ - U/S. 68 OF THE ACT THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURES FURNI SHED BY THE APPELLANT AS COMPARED WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REGARDING RECEIP TS FROM THE SISTER CONCERNS. AS STATED EARLIER, THE APPELLANTS REPRESENTATIV E FURNISHED THE DETAILS ON THE BASIS OF COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THEY H AD NO ACCESS TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE WITH DRI AT THAT TIME. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS ABLE TO GET THE COPIE S OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FROM THE DRI AND HAD COMPARED THE DETAILS FINDING DISCREPANCIES. NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE APPE LLANT TO RECONCILE THE FIGURES. THE APPELLANT WENT ON APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT (A) W HO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN SPI TE THE APPELLANT FURNISHING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT N OW FROM THE DRI AND HAS RECONCILED THE DIFFERENCE. AS CAN BE SEEN F ROM RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, THE AMOUNTS DUE FROM ONE SISTER CONCERNS HAS BEEN WRONGLY SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED FROM ANOTHER SISTER CONCERN ORIGINALLY WHICH IS NOW CORRECTED AND RECON CILED. A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT ALREADY HAD BEEN FURNIS HED EARLIER IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS AND AS PER THE RECONCILIATION S TATEMENT FURNISHED ON 25.07.2013 BEFORE THE BENCH, THE APPELLANTS REP RESENTATIVE HAD CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.17,18,020 /-. AFTER FURTHER ITA NO.1191/MDS/2013 6 RECONCILIATION, THE APPELLANT HAS NARROWED DOWN THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,78,820/- AS PER THE STATEMENTS FURNISHED NOW. THE APPELLANT CONFINES HIS DEMAND FOR GETTING RELIEF AS PER GROUN D 10 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE HONBLE BENCH MAY KINDLY DIRECT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FUR NISHED BY THE APPELLANT BASED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR TAKING A DECISION APPROPRIATELY ON THE ABOVE/ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESEN T APPEAL AND RENDER JUSTICE. 6. LD. D.R VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. AND REQUESTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE MAY BE CONF IRMED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE US. ON PERUS ING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSE SSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE REVENUE AND THEREFORE, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE WE HEREBY REMIT BACK THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. WE FURTHER DIRECT THE ASS ESSEE TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE REVENUE IN ITS PROCEEDINGS BY PROMPTLY PRO DUCING ALL THE ITA NO.1191/MDS/2013 7 RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE REVENUE AND NOT TO SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF THE CASE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE REVENUE TO PROVIDE WITH THE COPIES OF AN Y DOCUMENTS SEIZED BY THE REVENUE, IF THEY ARE NOT HANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (S.S.GODARA) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE