PR Karuppiah, Thanjavur V. ITO, Thanjavur

ITA 1346/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77392 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BHASHYAM
• Assessee Lawyers: R VENKATESH
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' $ % , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO. 1346/MDS/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) MR. P.R.KARUPPIAH, 199, 12 TH CROSS, ARULANANDAMMAL NAGAR, THANJAVUR-613 007. VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(1), THANJAVUR.. PAN: AIAPK8940P ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. R.VENKATESH, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR.GURU BHASHYAM, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 5 TH JUNE, 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 TH JULY, 2014 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCH IRAPALLI DATED 26.2.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION O F ` 4,95,378/- CONSISTING OF CLOSING BANK BALANCE OF ` 3,26,233/- AND ` 1,69,145/- AS ESTIMATED OMISSION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF SRI LAKSHMI ESSENCE MAR T, 2 ITA NO. 1346/MDS/2 013 THANJAVUR FILED RETURN ON 29.7.2009 ADMITTING TOT AL INCOME OF ` 1,88,832/-. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 29.12.2011 DETERMINING INCOME AT ` 6,84,210/-. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 3,26,233/- BEING CLOSING BALANCE OF ICICI BANK ACCOUNT . THE A SSESSING OFFICER ALSO ESTIMATED ` 3,00,000/- AS OMISSION OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATE AND SINCE ASSESSEE HAS ALR EADY OFFERED CASH CREDIT OF ` 1,30,855/-. ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED DIFFERENCE OF ` 1,69,145/- AS NET OMISSION OF INCOME. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TRANSACTIONS IN ASSESSEES ACC OUNTS ARE IN TURN BELONG TO HIS WIFE AND HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE WHO IS ALS O ASSESSED TO TAX. 3. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT TRANSACTI ONS REFLECTED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT RELATE TO ASSE SSEES WIFE AND THEY HAVE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS MAINTAIN ED BY HER AND SHE IS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF CLO SING 3 ITA NO. 1346/MDS/2 013 BALANCE IN ICICI BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO ` 3,26,233/- ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE RELEVANT COLUMN FOR BANK BAL ANCE SHOWN AS NIL BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE. COUNSEL SUBMIT S THAT CLOSING BALANCE OF ICICI BANK ACCOUNT WAS SHOWN IN SUNDRY DEBTORS WHICH WERE REFLECTED IN RETURN AS ` 6,71,902/-. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES IN THE RETURN AS WELL AS BALANCE SHEE T AND THERE WAS NO SUPPRESSION OF INCOME AND IT IS ONLY DUE TO MISTAKE IN SHOWING FIGURES IN PROPER COLUMNS. COUN SEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO VALID MATERIAL FOR HOLDING THAT THERE IS OMISSION OF INCOME WITH RESPECT TO BANK TR ANSACTIONS AND ESTIMATING THE ALLEGED INCOME SAID TO HAVE BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT CLOSING BALA NCE WAS ADMITTED IN ASSESSEES WIFE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31. 3.2009. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPR ECIATE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS OPENED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH APPLIED F OR IN JOINT NAMES OF ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AND THE ACCOUN T WAS OPERATED BY HIS WIFE AND SHE WAS ACCOUNTED FOR BANK ING TRANSACTIONS IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY HER. THERE FORE, HE 4 ITA NO. 1346/MDS/2 013 SUBMITS THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT APPRECIATED THE SUBMISSIONS AND MADE ADDITIONS WHICH MAY BE DELETED . 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITS THAT THER E IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE RELATED TO ASSESSE ES WIFE. 5. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSME NT OBSERVED THAT IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE, RELEVANT COLUMN FOR FURNISHING OF BANK BALANCE IS FILLED UP AS NIL AND THERE IS DISCREPANCY IN THE FIGURES SHOWN UNDER FIXED ASSETS AND SUNDRY DEBTORS IN THE RETURN AS WELL A S BALANCE SHEET . THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE V IEW THAT ASSESSEES WIFE HAS CHANGED FIGURES IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND SHE HAS ALSO NOT FILED REVISED RETURN. THEREFOR E, HE CONSIDERED CLOSING BALANCE OF THE ICICI BANK ACCOUN T AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT DISPUTING THAT ASSESSEES WIFE IS NOT MAINTA INING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE SAVINGS BANK BALANCE IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE RE TURN FILED BY 5 ITA NO. 1346/MDS/2 013 ASSESSEES WIFE EVEN THOUGH TRANSACTION BELONGS TO HIS WIFE IT HAS TO BE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS TH E SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT REMAINS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ESTIMATED OMISSION OF INCOME AT ` 3,00,000/- OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS ADMITTED IN ASSES SEES HANDS AND FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITION THERE IS NO BASI S NOR ANY MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS SUPPRESSION OF IN COME BY THE ASSESSEE. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT SUNDRY DEBTORS SHOW N AS PER THE RETURN AT ` 6,71,902/- INCLUDES CLOSING BALANCE IN ICICI BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO SUNDRY DEBTORS WHICH AR E REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT ` 3,52,670/-. TAKING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE ON HAND HAS TO BE EXAMINED THOROUGHLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFRESH WITH REF ERENCE TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY TE ASSESSEES WI FE AND THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HIS WI FE AND ALSO WITH REFERENCE TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY T HEM. THEREFORE, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW, AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G TO THE ASSESSEE. 6 ITA NO. 1346/MDS/2 013 6. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, T HE 17 TH DAY OF JULY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDR A PRASAD ) . ( ' )* ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / , JUDICIAL MEMBER/ ) , ) /CHENNAI, - /DATED, 17 TH JULY, 2014 SOMU /0 10 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. 2 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 /CIT 5. 0 6 /DR 6. /GF .