R.Meganathan, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 7(4), CHENNAI

ITA 1659/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2681 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINIVASA RAO VARAJCIT D R
• Assessee Lawyers: K MEENANKSHISUNDARAMITP
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1659 & 1660/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 & 2014-15 MR.R.MEGANATHAN, D-4,NEWRI SHARMADA, Z-BLOCK, PLOT NO.1290/1210, 13 TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI 600 040. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 7(4), CHENNAI-34. [PAN AFMPM 0244 F ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.K.MEENANKSHISUNDARAM,ITP !' /RESPONDENT BY : MR.SRINIVASA RAO VARA,JCIT, D.R # $ %& / DATE OF HEARING : 01 - 11 - 201 8 '( %& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 - 11 - 201 8 !' / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1659/CHNY/2018 IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.151/CIT(A)-7/2016-17 DATED 26.03 .2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, AND ITA NO.1660/CHNY/2018 IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF ITA NOS.1659 & 1660/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.139//1/CI T(A)-7/16-17 DATED 26.03.2018FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. SHRI K.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, AND SHRI SRINIVASA RAO VARA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF THE OF THE REVENUE. 3. AS BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE INVOLVED IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE SAME IS DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD.A.R THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF WHOLE SALE TRADING IN LIVESTOCK. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT , THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES IN R ESPECT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AND ALSO DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF VEHICLES, WHICH WAS PURCHASED UNDER HIRE PURCHASE B ASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD.A.R RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT 2% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL, LD.CI T(A) HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD CONFIRMED THE ACTIONS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BOTH THE A SSESSMENT YEARS. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT ADDITIONS AS MADE BY THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WAS ITA NOS.1659 & 1660/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: LIABLE TO BE DELETED AND THE NET PROFIT ESTIMATED B Y THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 WAS L IABLE TO BE REDUCED. 5. IN REPLY, LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO T CO-OPERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS NO EVIDE NCES, NOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER OR ALSO LD.CIT(A). IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT EVEN NO EV IDENCES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS A SUBMISS ION THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CASE IN PRODUC ING THE EVIDENCES, THE SAME IS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) WERE LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSA L OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, LAST PARAGRAPH AT PAGE-2 OF ASSES SMENT ORDER, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 SHOWS THAT THE LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAI LS AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE NON-CO-OPERATION BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESS EES REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED O N THE BASIS OF RECORDS, EVIDENCES AND OTHER DETAILS AVAILABLE, BEF ORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT, THE SECOND PARAGRAPH AT PAGE-2 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUE D ON 15.10.2015 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SAID THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S WERE WASHED AWAY BY FLOODS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEG ORICALLY SHOWN THAT ITA NOS.1659 & 1660/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: THE FLOOD WAS EFFECTED ONLY ON 01.12.2015 AND 02.11 .2015 CLEARLY SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION OF PRODU CING THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HAVE CONSIDERE D THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ISSUE CAN BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. A SSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- ADJUDICATION. HOWEVER, IT WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPO SE ALSO IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN WASHED AWAY IN THE FLOODS. THUS, IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US, WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME STANDS CONFIRMED. 7. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2014-15 SHOWS THAT IN PARA 3.1, THE AO HAS RECORDED THAT WH EN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE EXPENSES LEDGER ALONG WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT DU E TO THE ILL HEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE PRO DUCED AND THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CAN FINISH THE ASSESSMENT U/S.14 4 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS COUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE T HE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOR HAS THE ASSESS EE TAKEN ANY PAINS TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), NOR BEFORE US. FURTHER, ITA NOS.1659 & 1660/CHNY/2018 :- 5 -: IT IS NOTICED THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 BEING THE FINANCIAL YEAR EN DING 31.03.2014, IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2013-14 THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS STATED THAT THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WERE LOST IN THE FLOODS IN 2015. OBVIOUSLY THE ASSESSEES PRAYER THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CAN BE PRODUCED, ALSO DOES NOT HOLD ANY WAT ER. THIS BEING SO, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(APPEALS) AND THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY, T HE SAME STANDS UPHELD. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON FIRST NOVEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) # !$ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) % !$ / JUDICIAL MEMBER ) $ / CHENNAI * / DATED: 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2018. K S SUNDARAM + !%,- . -% / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. # /% () / CIT(A) 5. -23 !%4 / DR 2. !' / RESPONDENT 4. # /% / CIT 6. 35 6$ / GF