M/S VARMA MEDICALS, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 1565/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4025 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1565/CHNY/2018 ' #$' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 M/S VARMA MEDICALS, NO.28/1, MOTILAL STREET, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : AADFV 0470 G V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD - 2(2), CHENNAI. (&'/ APPELLANT) (()&'/ RESPONDENT) &' * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ()&' * + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT , # * -. / DATE OF HEARING : 01.10.2018 /0$ * -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.10.2018 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -2, CHENNA I, DATED 24.01.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING THIS APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY. I HAVE HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E AND THE LD. 2 I.T.A. NO.1565/CHNY/18 D.R. I FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NO T FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, I CONDONE T HE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDIT ION OF 5,11,811/- IN VIEW OF DIFFERENCE IN RESPECT OF THE RECEIPT AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATE AND RECEIPT ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE RECONCILIATION S TATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF 3,22,999/- WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE ADDITI ON TO THE EXTENT OF 3,22,999/- INSTEAD OF 5,11,811/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(APPEALS). THE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE C IT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IT NEEDS T O BE VERIFIED. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE TDS CERTI FICATE, THE TOTAL RECEIPT WAS 15,28,950/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE RECEIPT WAS ONLY 13,40,138/-. THE TDS WAS 82,687/-. THIS IS NOT 3 I.T.A. NO.1565/CHNY/18 IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ONLY 10,17,139/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS RECEIPT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHE R SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ADDITION OF 5,11,811/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONSEQUENT TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RECEIPT FOUND IN TDS CERTIFI CATE AND IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE CIT(APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND STILL FOUND THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF 3,22,999/-. IN THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE TOTAL RECEIPT AT 13,40,138/-. HOWEVER, THE TDS CERTIFICATE DISCLOSE D THE RECEIPT OF 15,28,950/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT T AKEN IN THE RECEIPT IS NOT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS N OT KNOWN WHY THE TDS WAS GIVEN CREDIT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE IN CAS E THE INCOME DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR THE AS SESSEE TO OFFER PROPER EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF B OTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSU E IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHALL RE- 4 I.T.A. NO.1565/CHNY/18 EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE TDS C ERTIFICATE AND OTHER MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFT ER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED, THE 9 TH OCTOBER, 2018 KRI. * (-34 54$- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. ()&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 6- () /CIT(A)-2, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CHENNAI-1, CHENNAI 5. 4#7 (- /DR 6. 8' 9 /GF.