ITO, Vellore V. M/s. Savitha Devi, Tiruvannamalai

ITA 1382/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64314 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 1382/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(4), VELLORE. VS. M/S. SAVITHA DEVI, 19, SANNATHI STREET, THIRUVANNAMALAI. PAN AABFS4920N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 O R D E R PER DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS FILED BY THE REVENUE, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)IX AT CHENNAI DATED 22.3.2012. THE APPEAL ITA 1382/12 :- 2 -: ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SEC.14 3(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM DOING BUSINESS AS TRANSPO RT CONTRACTORS. IT FILED A RETURN OF NIL INCOME. T HE ASSESSEEFIRM CLAIMED CREDIT FOR TDS MADE TO TAMIL NADU STATE MAR KETING COP. LTD. (TASMAC). FORM 16A WAS ALSO FILED. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED IN IN DIVIDUAL CAPACITY, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM. THE TASMAC ALSO CO NFIRMED THAT TDS WAS MADE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. IN THAT COURSE, HE DISALLOWED DAMAGE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTIN G TO ` 13,58,808/-. THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE WAS ADDED TO T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEEFIRM. 3. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX( APPEALS) HELD THAT SMT. SAVITHA DEVI, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM PROPERTY, SHARE INCOME FROM M/S. P. SAVITHA DE VI AND INCOME FROM MINI BUS AND SHE DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONT RACT BUSINESS. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE MISTAKES REF LECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE ARE INNOCUOUS AND ALL THOSE AMOUNTS REPRESENT THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE FIRM. AS SUCH, HE HELD THAT THE ENTIRE CONTRACT RECEIPTS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEEFIRM AND THE CLAIM OF DAMAGE HAS ALSO TO B E ALLOWED AS ITA 1382/12 :- 3 -: A DEDUCTION. HE, ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 13,58,808/-. 4. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND THEREFORE, THE SECO ND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DE LETING THE ADDITION OF ` 13,58,808/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAS DISALLOWED THE DAMAGE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEEFIRM. 5. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, NOBO DY WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN SPITE OF NOTICE. 6. SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, THE LEARNED STANDING COUN SEL APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE AND ARGUED THE CASE. 7. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANC E WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF ANY RECORDS, VOUCHERS AND OTHER DET AILS. HE PROCEEDED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TDS CERTIFICATE DI D NOT BELONG TO THE FIRM AND AS SUCH, EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE A LLOWED. BUT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND VOUCHERS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND THE MISTAKES REFLECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE WERE INNO CUOUS. THERE CANNOT BE TWO VIEWS ON THIS FINDING. ONCE THAT FIN DING IS THERE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE ITA 1382/12 :- 4 -: CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM . IN SUCH SCENARIO, IT IS QUITE CONSEQUENTIAL THAT THE EXPEND ITURE SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN ASSESSEES HANDS. THE REFORE, WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) H AS CORRECTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 8. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE. IT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 20 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (DR.O.K.NAR AYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR