Madhusudharan Reddy, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1503/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73766 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BHASHYAM IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: K MEENAKSHISUNDHARAM ITP
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . . !' , # '$ % BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1503/MDS/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 -2010) SHRI. MADHUSUDHARAN REDDY, NO.4/663, MAIN ROAD, PADIANALLUR, RED HILLS, CHENNAI 600 052. [PAN : AHYPH9288P] ( &' /APPELLANT) VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. K. MEENAKSHISUNDHARAM, I.T.P. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. GURU BHASHYAM, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 13.03.2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.03.2014 '* / O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL ARISES FROM O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VI, CHENNAI DATED 15.11 .2012, PASSED I.T.A.NO.1503/MDS/2013 :- 2 -: IN C.NO.6502(59)/2012-13/VI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-2010, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT]. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE INSTANT APPEAL BARRED BY 220 DAYS DELAY IN FILING. THE AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO ASSESSEES AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.07.2013 WITH MEDICAL CERTIFICATES STATING REASON S THEREOF. THE REVENUE HAS NOT CONTESTED VERY SERIOUSLY AVERMENTS IN THE CONDONATION AFFIDAVIT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE C ONDONE DELAY OF 220 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS. 3. ON MERITS, SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESS EE CHALLENGES ACTION OF THE CIT IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO REDO THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 29.12.2011 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDE R SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. HE CONTENDS THAT WHILE DIRECTING SO, THE CIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS LAW IN UPSETTING THE REGULAR ASS ESSMENT ALREADY FRAMED. ACCORDINGLY, ACCEPTANCE OF APPEAL HAS BEEN PRAYED FOR. 4. PER CONTRA, THE REVENUE SUPPORTS THE CIT ORDER AND SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONDUCT AN Y ENQUIRY QUA DETAILS OF AMOUNT RECEIVED I3.5 CRORES, NATURE OF S ERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO EXPENDITURE OF I2 CRORES, SEC TION 263 I.T.A.NO.1503/MDS/2013 :- 3 -: PROCEEDING HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY ASSUMED IN THIS CASE. IT PLACES RELIANCE ON CASE LAW 2012(343) ITR 329 ITO VS. DOSHI HOUSING PROJECTS AND ARGUES THAT ONCE THERE WAS NO ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT ITSELF AMOUNTED TO AN ERROR CAUSING PRE JUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 5. BRIEF FACTS NOTICED FROM THE CASE FILE THAT THE ASS ESSEE; IS AN INDIVIDUAL IS A PRODUCER OF TELUGU MOVIES. ON 30. 09.2009, HE HAD FILED HIS RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF I1,34,76,722/- WHI CH WAS SUMMARILY PROCESSED. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAME D SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE TO CASS. THEREIN, HE PASS ED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2011 MAKING ADDITION OF AGRICULTU RAL INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF I17,40,000/- WHICH COULD NOT BE PROVED WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. IN THIS MANNER, THE ASSESSEE S INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT I1,52,16,722/- 6. IT EMANATES FROM THE CASE FILE THAT THE CIT FORMED AN OPINION ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY QUA ABOVE SAID ISSUES(SUPRA). THEREFORE, HE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 DATED 26 .7.2012 WHICH WAS RESENT TO ASSESSEE ON 06.08.2012 AND 4.09.2012. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR. THUS, VIDE ORDER UND ER CHALLENGE, THE I.T.A.NO.1503/MDS/2013 :- 4 -: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO PASS AFRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER GRANTING LIBERTY TO TH E ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT WITH FURTHER DETA ILS OF TDS ETC. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE CASE FI LE. THE RELEVANT FACT OF THE CASE ALREADY STAND NARRATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES CITS EX-PARTE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSM ENT. UNDISPUTEDLY, HE HAD RECEIVED NOTICES OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT D ATED 6.8.2012 AND 4.9.2012. THEREFORE, AS FAR AS THIS EX-PARTE ASPEC T IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 8. COMING TO MERITS OF THE CASE, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSES SMENT DID NOT CONDUCT ANY ENQUIRY AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS COMPLETELY SILENT ON THE ISSUES OF RECEIPT OF I3.5 CRORES, NATURE OF SERVICE RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF EXPENDI TURE OF I2 CRORES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM CASE L AW OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA) IN HOLDING THAT IN CASE NO ENQUIRY IS CONDUCTED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, IT ITSELF AMOUNTS TO AN ER ROR CAUSING PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WE REJECT AS SESSEES CONTENTIONS I.T.A.NO.1503/MDS/2013 :- 5 -: CHALLENGING ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTIO N 263 OF THE ACT TAKEN RECOURSE TO BY THE CIT. THE ORDER UNDER CHALL ENGE IS AFFIRMED. 9. IN RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 17TH OF MARCH, 2014, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE PRESIDENT (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:17 TH MARCH, 2014. K.V. COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR