DCIT, CHENNAI V. Rajan Dev D., CHENNAI

ITA 1213/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 121321714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1213/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE I(2) CHENNAI VS. SHRI RAJAN DEV D. FLAT NO.1, PLOT NO.W-338 19 TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR WEST CHENNAI 600 030 [PAN AAGPR 8498 F] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.B. KOLI, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 12 - 08 - 2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 - 09 - 2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHENNA I, DATED 22.1.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE B Y RPAD. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE POSTAL ACKNOW LEDGMENT AS A PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. INSPI TE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHOSEN TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ITA NO.1213/15 :- 2 -: WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. THEREFOR E, WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DI SPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. SHRI A.B.KOLI, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 50 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH ONE SHRI V. KUMARAVEL PURC HASED 2 ACRES OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HIS SHARE WAS 50% OF THE LAND AND HE PAID ONLY ` 25 LAKHS. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 50 LAKHS U/S 69 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) ADMITT ED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 5.10. 2007 AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES SHARE IS ONLY 50% IN 2 ACRES O F LAND AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRIBUTED ONLY ` 25 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. REFERRING TO RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NAMELY, CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 5.10.2007, AND WITHOU T GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED THE GEN UINENESS OF THE CONVEYANCE DEED FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION. ITA NO.1213/15 :- 3 -: 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASS ESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE PURCHASED 2 ACRES OF LAND ALONGWITH ONE SHRI V . KUMARAVEL FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 50 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HIS SHARE IS ONLY 50% IN 2 A CRES OF LAND AND HE HAS PAID ONLY ` 25 LAKHS. HOWEVER, NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, HE ADDED T HE ENTIRE ` 50 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT . BEF ORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED CONVEYANCE DEED DATE D 5.10.2007 BY WHICH ONE ACRE OF LAND WAS CONVEYED TO M/S BEN FOUN DATION P. LTD. THE CIT(A), AFTER EXTRACTING SCHEDULE-C OF THE CONV EYANCE DEED, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRIBUT ED ONLY ` 25 LAKHS. THE AMOUNT WAS ALSO TRANSFERRED THROUGH BANKING CHA NNEL AND RELEVANT ENTRIES WERE FOUND IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY MATERI AL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ENTIRE MATERIAL INCLUDING T HE CONVEYANCE DEED WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). SCHEDULE-C OF THE CON VEYANCE DEED EXTRACTED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT OFF OF 2 ACRES OF LAND WAS TRANSFERRED BY THIS CONVEYANCE DE ED. THE DISPUTE IS NOT WITH REGARD TO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY THE ASS ESSEE BUT PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ONE SHRI V. KUMAR AVEL. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASED 2.00 ACRES OF LAND. SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED ITA NO.1213/15 :- 4 -: ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED. IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED THE ACTUAL AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASING 2 ACRES OF LAND ALONGWITH SHRI V. KUMARAVEL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER S OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS R EMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SH ALL RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF