ITO, CHENNAI V. A.H.Lafir, CHENNAI

ITA 1439/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8552 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RIVA SRINIVS J

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . . ' #$, & '( ) BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1439/MDS./2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1(2), CHENNAI-34. VS. SHRI A.H.LAFIR, 47,MODEL SCHOOL ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM,CHENNAI-34. [PAN ABVPL 4612 P ] ( *+ / APPELLANT) ( ,-*+ /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MRS.RIVA SRINIVS, JCIT,DR /RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 27 - 07 - 201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 - 09 - 2016 / O R D E R PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-16, CHENNA I, DATED 23.02.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO.1439/MDS./2016 :- 2 -: 2. ALL THE GROUNDS IN THIS REVENUES APPEAL ARE R ELATED TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 40 LAKHS ASSESSED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E AO FOUND THAT THERE WAS A CREDIT OF ` 40 LAKHS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 18.12.2007. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FRO M M/S.VISION CORPORATION, WHICH WAS STATED TO BE PAID AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. SINCE THE TRANSACTION IS NOT MATERIALIZED , THE ADVANCE WAS RETURNED BY M/S.VISION CORPORATION ON 18.12.2007. H OWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM THAT THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED TO M/S.VISION CORPORATION BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO DISBELIEVED THE TRANSACTION AND M ADE THE ADDITION OF ` 40 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). BEFORE LD .CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AMOUNT WAS CREDITED TO THE SAVINGS BAN K ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH IOB NRI BRANCH ON 18.12.2007 AND TH E ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE RELEVANT COMMUNICATION. THE LD.CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AS GENUINE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ITA NO.1439/MDS./2016 :- 3 -: ADDITION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, LD.D.R ARGUED THAT THE AO IS MADE AD DITION FOR WANT OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY REGARDING THE T RANSACTION AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE TO PRODUCE THE EVID ENCE WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT MADE TO M/S.VISION CORPORATION. EXCEPT EMAIL NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE LD.CIT(A), ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING THE GENUINESS OF TRANSACTIO NS AND THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION SIMPLY REL YING ON THE CREDIT MADE IN THE NRI ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , LD.D.R CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD.C IT(A) TO PROVE THE TRANSACTION AS GENUINE. 5. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, NOBOD Y APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS CASE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS NOTICED TH AT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAILS REGARDING THE DATE ON WHICH T HE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO M/S.VISION CORPORATION AND SOURCE THEREON. SIMPLY EXPLAINING ITA NO.1439/MDS./2016 :- 4 -: THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S.VISION CORPOR ATION CANNOT PROVE THE TRANSACTION AS GENUINE. BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A), THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED SOME EVIDENCE OF COMMUNICATIO N, FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT ELABORATED THE NATURE O F COMMUNICATION AND THE DETAILS THEREON IN THE ORDER AND NO OPPORTU NITY WAS GIVEN TO THE AO. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR EXAMINING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BY THE AO. ACCORDI NGLY, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO TH E ASSESSEE TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE AO AND AO TO PASS APPR OPRIATE ORDER AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS/TRANSACTIONS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 9 TH SEPTEMBER , 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ! . . ! . '# ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( $% . ! . &'()* ) (D.S.SUNDER SINGH) & + ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ,& / CHENNAI -' / DATED: 09.09.2016 K S SUNDARAM '#(( ).(/. / COPY TO: ( 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ( 0(12 / CIT(A) 5. .3'( 4 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ( 0 / CIT 6. '%(5 / GF