M/s. S.P.G.Ramasamy Nadar & Sons, Virudhunagar V. ACIT, Virudhunagar

ITA 1396/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 139621714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1396/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. S.P.G. RAMASAMY NADAR & SONS, 77/1, SOUTH CAR STREET, VIRUDHUNAGAR. PAN: AAFFS3162E VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, VIRUDHUNAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. G.BA SKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : MR. SHAJI P .JACOB, IRS., COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH DECEMBER, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 8 TH DECEMBER, 2011 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006-07. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS )-II AT MADURAI DATED 28.06.2010 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSE SSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961. ITA NO.1396/M DS/2010 2 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT CASH ASSISTANCE IS TAXABLE IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HIMSELF HAS ALL OWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMEN T YEAR AND HE IS TAKING INCONSISTENT VIEW AS FAR AS THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONCERNED. IT IS ALSO THE GRIEV ANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA THAT CASH ASSIST ANCE IS NOT TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AS IT REPRESE NTED A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH HAD NO COST. 3. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES ON THE ISSUE. ON THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH ASSISTANCE SHOULD BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL ASSET DOES NOT HOLD GOOD IN LAW. THE G ROUND IS REJECTED. AS FAR AS THE OTHER ISSUE IS CONCERNED, I T IS NECESSARY TO RE-COMPUTE THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO T HE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH THIS MATTER HAS TO BE SENT BAC K TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. WITH R EFERENCE TO THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 AND 3, THE FI LE IS ITA NO.1396/M DS/2010 3 REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. 4. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON FRIDAY, THE 8 TH DECEMBER, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 8 TH DECEMBER, 2011. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT ( 4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.