ACIT, Madurai V. M/s. Susee Auto Plaza (P) Limited, Madurai

ITA 1309/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61069 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SIBENDU MOHARANA IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1309/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-CIRCLE-III, MADURAI. VS. M/S. SUSEE AUTO PLAZA (P) LIMITED, 89/102, THENI MAIN ROAD, MADURAI. PAN AADCS 3665 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. SIBENDU MOHARANA, IRS, CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDH AR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 30 TH APRIL, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH APRIL, 2012 O R D E R PER DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2005-06. THE APPEAL IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I I AT MADURAI DATED 27.04.2011 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT C OMPLETED UNDER SEC.143[3] READ WITH SEC.153C OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961. ITA 1309/11 :- 2 -: 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRE SENT APPEAL IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEA LS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 67,92,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY RELATING TO EXCESS AMOUNT COLLE CTED AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION. 3. THE VERY SAME ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE INCOME -TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI D BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 1378 TO 1380/MDS/2009. THE TRIBUNAL THROU GH ITS COMMON ORDER DATED 29.1.2010 HAS HELD THAT THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING TH E ADDITION. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONCLUDED THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND IN ASSESSEES CASE; THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE REVENUE RELATED TO FOUR WHEELER DIVISION; NO EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED FROM ANY CUSTOMER WHICH MAY PROVE THE CAS E OF THE REVENUE; THE AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION ETC. COULD NOT FORM PART OF THE ASS ESSEES BUSINESS; THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN R EJECTED AND NO EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE WHICH RELATED TO THE ASSE SSEES CASE. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE WAS NO BASI S FOR MAKING ITA 1309/11 :- 3 -: ANY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.153C. THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED. 4. WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVE RED BY THE ABOVE STATED COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2006-07 AND 2007-08. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTFULLY FOLLOWED THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IS FOUND TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. 5. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON MONDAY, THE 30 TH OF APRIL, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 30 TH APRIL, 2012 MPO* COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A ) (4) CIT (5) DR