ITO, CHENNAI V. Venkatram Nagappa Naik, CHENNAI

ITA 1194/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8001 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S VENUGOPALAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1194/MDS/2016 $ %$ /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD -15 (3), WANAPARTHY BLOCK, II FLOOR, 121, M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI 600 034. V. SHRI VENKATRAM NAGAPPA NAIK, NEW NO.12, OLD NO.83, FOURTH MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 020. PAN : ABSPN 1057 D ( &' /APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) &' * + /APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT ()&'*+ /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.VENUGOPALAN, C.A. , *-' /DATE OF HEARING : 14.10.2016 . % *-' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.11.2016 /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) 15, CHENNAI DATED 09.02.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2. 2 I.T.A. NO.1194/MDS/2016 2. SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DEPOSIT OF RS.1,22,25,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT THE FUNDS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON TRANSFER FROM M/S. MOSAIC INDIA PVT.LTD. AND ASHMITA ENTERPRISES. HOWEVER, NO MATERIAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF TRANSFER OF FU NDS FROM THESE TWO INSTITUTIONS. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT (A) HOWEVER, FOU ND THAT THERE WAS A TRANSFER OF FUNDS. THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN FROM M/S.M OSAIC INDIA PVT.LTD. AND ASHMITA ENTERPRISES ARE RE-DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AC COUNT. THE CIT (A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A) . THE CIT (A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL FOR DEPOSIT OF RS.1,22,25,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S.VENUGOPALAN, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS.73,50,000/- ON SALE OF A PROPERTY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE BALANCE AMOUNT WA S TRANSFERRED FROM M/S.MOSAIC INDIA PVT.LTD. AND ASHMITA ENTERPRISES. REFERRING TO THE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FROM PAGE 61 TO 85, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT THESE A RE THE TRANSFER ENTRIES MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIV E HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE SO CALLED SALE DEED SAID TO BE EXECUTED BY ONE SHRI K.SRINIVASA AIYAR. IN VIEW OF THESE TRANSACTIONS, A CCORDING TO THE LEARNED 3 I.T.A. NO.1194/MDS/2016 REPRESENTATIVE, THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHI CH WAS MADE BY TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM M/S.MOSAIC INDIA PVT.LTD. AND ASHMITA EN TERPRISES ARE SUBSTANTIATED BY NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE C IT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSES SEE CLAIMS THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF A LAND TO THE EXTENT OF RS.73,50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND BALANCE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED ON TRANSFE R FROM M/S.MOSAIC INDIA PVT.LTD. AND ASHMITA ENTERPRISES. THE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT NOW FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. ON PERUSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE BANK S TATEMENT WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MOREOVER, THE CLAIM THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AND THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUN T IS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF SALE OF PROPERTY AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM M/S. MOSAIC INDIA PVT.LTD. AND ASHMITA ENTERPRISES NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED ON THE BAS IS OF THE BANK STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER A FRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NAMELY COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT AND COPY OF THE SALE DEED AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 I.T.A. NO.1194/MDS/2016 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, / /DATED, THE 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SP. * (-01 21%- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. ()&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 3- ( )/CIT(A) 4. , 3- /CIT, 5. 14 (- /DR 6. 5$ 6 /GF.