M/s. Sai Televisions Ltd., Chennai V. ITO, Ward - 3(2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1214/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 121423514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K ROY LD DR
• Assessee Lawyers: M TIWARY LD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

I.T.A NO. 1214/KOL/2011-A-SVM 1 , A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA BEFORE HON. SRI S.V MEHROT RA, AM & HON. SRI N.VIJAYKUMARAN, JM () . ., !' !' !' !' #. $!%&#, '' / I.T.A NO. 1214/KOL/2011 (#) !*+/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. SAI TELEVISIONS LTD. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICE R PAN: AALCS 2587G WARD 3(2), KOLKATA (-. /APPELLANT ) (/0-./ RESPONDENT ) -. / FOR THE APPELLANT : 1 / SHRI M.TIWARY, LD.AR /0-. / FOR THE RESPONDENT : 1 / SHRI S.K.ROY, LD.DR &#!2 3 4 /DATE OF HEARING : 02-02-2012 5* 3 4 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02-02-2012 6 /ORDER . ., SHRI S.V MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOLKATA DATED 29-06-2 011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-10 -2005. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T ACT 1961 ON 27-08- 2007. NO RETURN HAD BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. THERE AFTER, NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 08-09-2008 WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.200.82 LAKHS WITH VSNL. HE ALSO NO TICED THAT LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN WHEN THE DEPOSIT WAS MADE AND WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT. THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 144/147 OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTE R-ALIA, OBSERVING THAT NO EXPLANATION OR ANY KIND OF EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED EITHER BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) I.T.A NO. 1214/KOL/2011-A-SVM 2 RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT DELHI BE NCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (I) LTD [38 ITD 320 (DEL)]. 4. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT SINCE THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO CHENNAI, THE COMPLIANCE COULD NOT BE MADE. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE DENOVO. 5. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL, WE CONSIDER IT PROPER THAT ASSESS EE BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT OF RS.2 CRORES WITH BSNL. ACCOR DINGLY, WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING TH E ISSUE AFRESH. . 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6 & 7 &# 8 9 4 02-02-2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02-02-2012 SD/- SD/- [ #. $!%&#, ] [ . . , ] (N.VIJAYKUMARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) (S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (4) DATED :02-02-2012 *PP !:; (#<% (=! /SR.P.S./ 6 3 /(($ >$*?- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT- M/S. SAI TELEVISIONS LTD. 36, WALAJAH ROAD, CHENNAI- 600 002. 2 /0-. / RESPONDENT : I.T.O W 3(2), DWARLI HOUSE 8/2 ESP LANADE EAST, KOL- 69. 3. (6#/ THE CIT, 4. (6# ()/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 5. !(8 /(#/ DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 0$ /(/ TRUE COPY, 6#&/ BY ORDER, '% /ASSTT. REGISTRAR